the article, “Why We Hate HR” by author Keith H. Hammonds points out
the flaws in the HR concept repeatedly. They are able to support their
assumptions with technical data from reputable sources within the HR and
academia worlds. Specific notes of interest are as:·        
The lack of HR personnel being neither strategic partners or
leaders. ·        
Most HR managers are not interested in or prepared for doing
business. ·        
The use of idiotic performance appraisals. ·        
HR forfeits long-term value for short-term cost efficiency. ·        
HR is forced to apply standardization and uniformity in the
workplace or potentially be charged with unfairness. On
the reverse side of the HR concept flaws are some potentially remarkable
theories as to what HR should be within an organization. The specific areas of
interest areas follow:·        
HR should engage the finest and the brightest thereby raising
the organization’s value. ·        
HR is the protector of the company’s talent, so HR needs to
understand how people serve the corporate objectives. ·        
HR should be able to perform a realistic assessment of its core
customers and its competition.·        
HR is not just about benefits, they need to step up and assume
responsibility to know what their organizations issues are. ·        
HR needs to become part of their organizations strategic
partnership by becoming a part of the organizations business strategy. I
hate reading this article being in a shoe of HR. Making such a bold statement
about hating HR I feel it in a context of saying you hate hospitals and
medicines when the author actually meant be diseases!The
complaints, 60% of managers according to author have is that HR experts are as
well “process-focused,” they are not exceptionally business-keen,
they don’t comprehend information and investigation, and as a rule they are not
sufficiently consultative.  I believe
some of the points would be true, but the profession itself is tough and it is
going to lot of changes with the time. I trust HR experts are among the most
dedicated, energetic, vigorous, persevering representatives.I
came across a research study on the “demographics of HR” which was published
as The HR Career Factbook. The research also found
the reasons why people choose this profession. ·        
73% of HR professionals “want to help their organization improve
through people”·        
63% “like to help others”·        
56% “love organizational learning”·        
52% “love working with people.”Which
means majority of people choose HR because they are “peoples-people” and not
because they are pro in business data and analysis or they are business savvy.
With today’s technology and development in organisations, I agree HR have to
become more business savvy and strategic, focused on financial analyst to make a
strong HR team. Hence, we cannot yet say that we hate HR, it simply means we as
HR profession are in a transformation process to become stronger and
competitive. But
I would like to ask the author what justifies comparing a CFO with an MBA, CPA
and 20 years’ experience with a HR manager with very less formal education and
a few years of experience for planning strategies? I believe the comparison
should be done with professionals having equal qualifications and experiences
in their respective field. A
true, well equipped Human Resource professional is always more capable of
running the organisation more efficiently than a senior level management
position.  The
correlation between the strategic planning of an organization’s employees and
their overall business strategy is being increasingly recognized as one of
enormous importance. Corporate achievement is reliant upon the incorporation of
the human resource plan and the organizations strategic plan. There is an
increasing acknowledgment that ‘human capital’ is an organizations most
valuable asset, and it has and will continue to change the focus of strategic
planning (Schaefer, Clyatt, & Levine, 2006, p. 48).The
genuine issue, isn’t that HR officials aren’t financially savvy, or excessively
determined on conveying programs as opposed to improving worth, or unable to
act as the equivalents of the traditional power players in the association. The
genuine issue is that an excessive number of associations aren’t as requesting,
as thorough, as innovative about the human component in business as they are
about fund, showcasing, and R. If organizations and their CEOs aren’t
focused about the internal associates, how might we expect HR in those
organizations to play as a genuine a part as we and they need them to play?You
can’t be special, distinctive, compelling in the market unless you make
something special, distinctive, compelling in the work environment. Your strategy
is your culture; your culture is your strategy. The best organizations I know
understand that the most imperative business choices they make are not what new
items they dispatch or what new markets they enter. What truly matters is the
thing that new individuals HR let in, who they hire, and how they make an
environment in which everybody in the organization can share thoughts, take
care of issues, and build up a psychological and emotional stake in the endeavour.One
thing I totally agree with the author that all Human Resource personal needs to
know who the company’s core customers are, who the competition is, and who the
company is. Which also reminds me of the author pointing out how HR people are
a lot process oriented and waste time in appraisals. But as per my experience my
current company have something called as BSC Balance Score Card. It is nothing
but at the beginning of the year each department heads are given their
respective goals to achieve which would help the organization to achieve its
own goals. These goals are redirected to each manager and the subordinates
working under the respective manager. Hence each and every associate is well
versed with their own goals from the starting of the year. Based on their
performances in achieving those goals the balance score card is filled by their
respective managers. I personally feel this helps Human Resource and the
managers to know the quality staff and the ones who need more training.  The
real question should be do we hate HR at all? The answer remains a matter of
perception, but from Hammonds article, it would seem that HR is disliked and
underutilized at the same time. The role of HR transcends corporate barriers
and should be utilized as such. If ‘human capital’ is a corporations most
valuable asset then it stands to reason that getting HR involved in the early
stages of planning and allowing key input throughout the growth of the company
should be a foregone conclusion. The roles of HR have changed immensely from the
days of mostly document and record keepers to having a hand in every facet of
the organization. The roles and responsibilities will keep on changing as the
workplace continues to evolve into a global and electronic business medium.So, whenever you, as a worker, get frustrated with HR, or you,
as a HR executive, get frustrated with your part inside the company, quit
sweating the little stuff and begin making the huge inquiries: Why might
awesome individuals need to be a part of your organization in any case? Do you
know an incredible individual when you see one? Is it accurate to say that you
are extraordinary at showing people how your organization functions and wins?
Does your organization fill in as distinctively as it competes? On
the off chance that your company and its pioneers can answer those inquiries,
at that point you’ll have an organization that is equipped for winning and a HR
organization that everybody can love. 



I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out