If you want to spark up a real juicy conversation among HR types, ask the following question: “Is HR responsible for turnover?” Then stand back, admire your work, and enjoy the debate that follows.
“What was the question?”
This subject is a sticky wicket – Human Resources rightfully own the people processes of the company. That’s what we do – we find ‘em, hire them, watch over them, protect them, pay them, and put them to bed [We also investigate them, suspend them, and terminate them, but that’s another post.]
But where are the lines of demarcation regarding “ownership” of the people themselves? You’ll find no shortage of data sharing the statistical significance of turnover related to “my supervisor.” What exactly does that mean? Is the supervisor a problem? Was the hire a bad fit? Whose responsibility is it to identify, address, and correct these issues before they become problematic? Who owns the training and development function? Can HR be responsible for the input (hiring) but not the output (attrition?)
Recruiters and internal staffing take great pride in “landing” a new employee. It’s not uncommon to hear a recruiter claim the great employees they “hired” years after the fact, as in “Yep, he’s our CFO now, but it was me who hired him as an Analyst eight years ago (cocky sniff for emphasis).” I would like to think that I identify something beyond the job requirements when hiring a new employee, but that could also cause a high-flyer to want quicker advancement than what the company is prepared to offer.
So, back to the original question – is Human Resources responsible for turnover? Certainly not, but maybe it should be. How would that impact the recruiting process? It would be a game-changer ~ and that might be a good thing.
How? Tune in next month for Part 2….
John “Whit” Whitaker is Founder of the HR Hardball™; Straight talk, no-nonsense approach to workplace issues.
Follow me on Twitter and LinkedIn for more samplings of the Hardball message.
Of course HR is accountable for turnover. Said so last fall in my Blog http://www.herrmannadvantageconsulting.com/is-hr-accountable-for-turnover/
still hold firm to it today.
Sorry Don, you’ll have to move HR Nirvana with Lisa W. While I applaud the vision and the process, the reality is far different. Particularly for “Recruiters”. This where the generalist role really works well, it allows the HR person to build rapport and respect with their assigned departments thru the other functions of HR, employee relations, coaching, development so that when the time comes to recruit the hiring manager will listen to you. The Generalist can create a “line of sight” for the hiring manager by persuading them that filling that open requisition in 10 days with a warm body will result in heartache and woe in short order.
Sorry Lisa but what you are ineffectively labeling as HR Nirvana is reality. It is the real world and not only have I implemented it, some years ago, but I know many other professional HR leaders who have also do this. Additionally, passing the buck on accountability only further diminishes what little value HR realistically has in the workplace.
HR cannot hide from its responsibility and then make some innocuous claim for credibility. Therein lies a big part of HR’s problem. The weak ones don’t want accountability, they simply want to tell people how it is.
This holds true for HR Generalists as well. Back in 2007 I wrote the following in response to a John Sullivan Article titled, HR Generalists are Dinosaurs in Workforce magazine. (http://www.workforce.com/article/20070408/NEWS02/304089998/your-reactions-to-john-sullivans-hr-dinosaurs-column# )
“Once again John Sullivan has accurately portrayed the reality within our chosen profession. The HR generalist is in fact a concept that needs to move to extinction. Regrettably, I can hear the crying and wailing from a number of sources both individually and as professional associations. SHRM proved Mr. Sullivan correct when it decided that anyone with an interest in the profession and $160 could become a member and then, by virtue of that membership, refer to themselves as an HR professional. The concept that someone with minimal education, minimal experience and almost no business knowledge could in fact call themselves a professional, or even make professional contributions, is ludicrous. Somewhere the specialization must occur. Without that specialization the HR generalist is little more than an office manager, a general management person or, more appropriately, the company social worker devoid of business knowledge and very much the corporate parental unit.
There is a role for the HR generalist, make no mistake about that. Usually under the supervision of an experienced specialist or the rare highly experienced HR executive, the HR generalist can in fact provide broad-based project support to specialized HR initiatives—but not as individuals accountable to business units moving productivity forward and implementing change that improve profitability.
When asking these individuals to quantify their value added, you get responses like “Well, my efforts resulted in a reduction of lawsuits filed against the company, so I saved untold millions.” “We made them happy so they worked harder.” Uh-huh, and how exactly is that measured?
The generalist bases its existence on doing the job of management-employee relations. Recruiters recruit; compensation people do compensation planning and analysis, coupled with all the other things that go with it; benefits specialists do … well, they do benefits. HR generalists tout their value by replacing management. HR generalists find themselves addressing ridiculous issues like bathroom etiquette, body odor, perfume scents and so on—things management should be addressing. When business realizes that all they have to do is make management manage, then the generalist has lost yet another niche. Generalists as a group do not like to recruit. Generalists as a group have a poor understanding of compensation law and ERISA. In short, as Mr. Sullivan so eloquently states, they are “hand-holding, silo-building, no-change agents who serve as barriers to HR having a measurable business impact.”
I agree they are nice people. I agree there will be exceptions to Mr. Sullivan’s broad statement (his relatively accurate statement, I might add). However, as a business function, the concept of the HR generalist is ridiculous.”
Here endeth the lesson.
Appreciate it for helping out, great information. kceeecdcfabgdeek