In my experience there are plenty of very talented people in HR.

My diagnosis of the problem is that even the most effective HR functions aren't being ambitious enough about their contribution.

There's a lot of cynicism over that well work phrase, people are our most important asset. But I do think most business leaders really mean what they say.

What they implicitly (unconciously) realise is that HR often isn't helping to get more value from this asset.

To turn this around, HR needs to show how the management of people can inform business strategy as well as support its implementation.

The HR function needs to take accountability for delivering the outcomes (eg capability, engagement, quality of leadership, diversity of the workforce, culture of the organisation etc) of effective people management.

And HR needs to stop being embarrased by the terminology it uses within people management ('engagement', for example), the subjectivity of its measures etc, and educate the rest of the workforce that the management of people does actually need to be quite different from management of the rest of the organisation.

My belief (supported by some experience) is that doing this will transform HR from a support function to a real driver of strategic success.

It's at this point that we'll be able to leverage the talent that already exists within HR, and encourage more of the most talented people working in organisations to see HR as the place they want to be.

I think today's fate of HR or the image it carries, is due to the HR functionaries themselves. Not to blame all HR functionaries, it is few who had, sometime misused their power and the chair and misled greater employee groups.

Over the period, to other's eye, they became bad boys. The image must be changed as the author rightly pointed out. Managing people is no baby-sitting job... it is purely strategic.

Great question. Important issue.

A similiar question was posed to Jack and Suzy Welch, and is answered in their book, "Winning: The Answers", on pages 119-122. "If HR is the most powerful part of an organization, as you always say, why is its impact only felt in a negative way"?

I will summarize (quote) their response:

1. HR rarely functions as HR should
2. HR should be every single company's killer app
3. What could possibly be more important than who gets hired, developed, promoted, or moved out the door?
4. HR has become marginalized because of two poles of bad behavior. One, when HR managers become stealthy little kingmakers; and two, when all HR does is essentially plan picnics, put out the plant newsletter, and drive everyone crazy by enforcing rules and regulations that appear to have no purpose other than to increase bureaucracy.

How would Jack and Suzy Welch fix it?:

1. It all starts with the people that are appointed to run HR---people with real stature and credibility
2. Pastor-parent types
3. They understand the business, its inner workings, its history and tensions, the hidden hierarchies in people's minds
4. They are relentlessly candid, even when the message is hard, and hold confidences tight
5. They help the company win by overseeing a rigorous appraisal and evaluation system that lets every person in the oranization know where he or she stands. HR should create effective mechanisms, such as money, recognition and training,to motivate and retain people.
6. The Company leaders need to let HR do its real job: elevating people management to the same level of professionalism and integrity as financial management.

They conclude by saying, "Since people are the whole game, what could be more important"?

A close friend of mine has been a V.P. of HR at GE for many years. He confirms that Jack Welch has embedded the above ideas into the fabric of GE's culture. HR executives are business leaders at GE, and help GE win.

The solution lies with business leaders recognizing that HR is broken; and understanding the value of fixing it.

Perhaps it starts when someone applies for a position at the company. HR becomes the enemy, a hurdle to get past to the real hiring manager. They should be the advocate for candidates and the organization - they are conservative, looking for someone who has already done the job as opposed someone who may have the skills needed. They set up roadblocks - applications only taken during certain hours, never sending a thank you note for applying, much less letting the person know that the job has been filled. The worst offenders are those that use scanners looking for keywords rather than actually looking at a resume.

I could go on. They should be a lot of things - it will take people who will change the way HR works.

Peter