>> MIM Speaks
FROM FACILITATOR TO AGENT OF CHANGE
JULY 2, 2000 -
THE STAR
INCREASINGLY, the traditional human resource function in an
organisation is being put under the microscope by the chief
executive. This is done not so much out of doubt over what HR
is doing. In fact, it is done more to know what HR could and
should do in support of the business.
And the entailing questions asked are: To what extent will HR
have to be reconfigured for it to progress beyond its basic
traditional functions to deliver greater value to the
company's business? How can the HR strategist play the role
of a business partner by focusing on the total business
results instead of what new micro HR procedures are needed?
These questions spring from the attitudinal change of chief
executives and the shift of importance that they are now
placing on their HR people to share in driving the company's
competition agenda.
At the end of the day, it is people who make or break the
organisation, regardless of its financial muscle or
technological prowess.
Integral in this preponderance is the issue of converting a
personnel department to a HR department. There is no shame if
the organisation's personnel department is doing a wonderful
job acting as a strategic agent in its primary function.
But there are still corporate leaders who feel that the HR
department is only meant to take charge of the administrative
matters of employment - so, changing the name of that
functional area from Personnel to HR is sufficient, as this
projects a modern image for the company.
Superficial as this may seem, it however gives the company the
impression that it has propelled itself into 21st century
management.
More forward-looking chief executives demand that the name
change should reflect a fundamental shift from being purely
administrative to being strategic.
The enlightened chief executive expects the HR leader to be
able to conceptualise, and possess the drive and competencies
to initiate and sustain change in the company. It is this
demand that challenges HR managers.
Generally, on the supply side of the market, there are three
types of HR people: the seasoned practitioner, the process
expert/consultant and the theorist/teacher, To what extent the
organisation wishing to transform itself from its status quo
to be the dynamic market leader through HR would depend very
much on what sort of HR people it has or needs to acquire to
drive this agenda.
With global competition, HR managers are now pressured to
think about what competencies they have and what they must do
to be an effective partner of change.
For a long time, HR managers have taken comfort in managing
their portfolio by tending to basic administrative needs. HR
development, where initiated,. mostly focused on procedural
inputs like computerising payroll.
There is a dire need to think organisational results and
systems perspective. It is also true that some very small
companies that have grown in business, but are still very much
in the formative stage of the organisational life cycle, would
require more basic HR support to stabilise things.
Most of these administrators in HR are seasoned practitioners
who have acquired their know-how through years of experience
on the job. Consequently, their main strength lies in their
knowledge of labour laws and HR housekeeping.
There are others who mature in HR know-how through mostly
being exposed to consultancy training and application of
proprietary products, but are lacking in systems understanding
and practical problem-solving. Thus, a lot of well-intended
ideas can sometimes create more problems than they hope to
solve, especially when these ideas satisfy the company's needs
during its growth stage.
HR administrators who move from the staid administrative
environment to the more vibrant competitive scenario will find
much difficulty in delivering the results to match
expectations.
This is because basic administration relies heavily on set
structures and precedents and tries to provide consistency,
whereas change management operationalises new ideas and causes
new learning and discomfort before stability settles.
Different expertise must be applied in the two different
scenarios.
Strategising HR requires HR to understand the company's
business direction and goals and, therefore, formulate its own
agenda to support the company. To be effective, HR should
consider what value it can add to the company's business in
the critical areas of systems and technology, values, culture
and behaviour and functional competencies.
It redefines its roles into four dimensions: being the
strategic partner in business growth, the agent of change, the
employee facilitator and the HR administrator.
As a strategic partner, HR aligns its own direction and
supports the company to refocus and to position itself in the
competitive business landscape. It scrutinises what alignment
is needed in terms of the culture, people's competencies and
systems which overarch the key factors of strategies,
structure, system, staff, skills and style of management
subsisted by a set of shared values.
In order to manage change, it must understand what stage of
growth the company is in. Many overlook this and, in their
enthusiasm to help management, will prescribe their favourite
magic bullet for all kinds of organisational malignancy.
Often, this happens because of a limitation in the consultancy
toolk- it is impossible to give what you do not possess. For
example, it all sounds nice to talk about becoming
entrepreneurs when you are already entrepreneurial and are in
the formative or renewed formative stage of organisational
growth, and what you may need more is functional competencies
to build a sustainable system to support the business
breakthrough. Without a good system and the right sort of
people to run it, the breakthrough collapses.
The role of the HR change agent can be anchored by the
training subfunction.
Training that is based on the TNA model should now be
complemented by the added disclosure through the alignment
process in addition to recognition of the business direction.
Furthermore, HR should shift from doing training to providing
education because the former has a short-term impact while the
latter is a continuous process. Further input into the
training needs cycle should then be derived from the results
of performance evaluation. In this way, performance is
systemised.
The role of the employee facilitator is to strike a meaningful
balance between employees' needs and employers' demands. The
give- and-take should be harmonised through monetary and non-
monetary compensations in exchange for benchmarked
performance.
What must the organisation do if it wants its HR to be
"strategic enabled?" In the Malaysian corporate scene, CEOs in
the 80s paid a lot of attention to marketing to meet the
expectations of their companies, and during the 90s turned to
the finance function to look after the numbers to generate
profits.
As the economy in recent years has shifted from comparative to
competitive advantage in order to compete in the global
market, the search for that cutting edge has intensified.
Chief executives now take a more holistic view to evaluate
their strengths. What are their employees capable of
delivering? What potential is there to convert work experience
into operational effectiveness?
In turn, HR leaders will have to ponder what strategies they
can craft that will transform the organisation from lingering
in status quo to be one with a sense of purpose and market
leadership.
What HR brings to the discussion table must be a comprehensive
strategy to ensure people success. To complete the process,
CEOs must be committed to making changes that can transform
the organisation. When this partnership is formed, luck
becomes a marginal thing.
|