Blowing Up the Box of HR

I was reading a blog post by Kevin Elkenberry entitled Six Ways to Think Outside the Box. It was a good post. What I liked about it was the fact that he said he really dislikes the phrase "think outside the box." He said that even that, much over used phrase, constricts your thinking. He thought that perhaps "explode the box" or "find a new box" would be better phrases. Well that got me to thinking (an increasingly rare event these days) about the "box of HR." Many "thought leaders" and fellow bloggers are trying to think outside the box of HR. People are trying to find creative ways to do things, new methods of organizing, and new things to try to break out of the old mold of HR. (Another overused phrase.) There have been some successes, but to many not enough.

So I thought "why not BLOW UP THE BOX OF HR?" (Creative huh?) I think some people out there may even be trying to do that. Trish McFarlane of The HRRingleader cofounded HRevolution in an attempt to revaluate the world of HR as it exists today. I have not had the good fortune to attend so I don't know what level the thought processes are on. Laurie Ruettimann of PunkRockHR fame lights a fuse every once in awhile to blow up the box (and she is a real firecracker! Ok bad pun.) But she is moving on from PunkRockHR and starting her own company, so we will have to see what happens there.

I am doing some more reading about Futurism so I am not ready at this moment to suggest how I might blow up the box of HR. In fact I was wondering whether it can even be blown up. We have all this "stuff" that the government requires that has to be sheltered in a bomb-proof safe. So if that cannot go away then will we always be constrained by the existing box and be unable to blow up the box. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to change the shape of the box.

What do you think?

• We can and should blow up the box.
• We may be able to reshape the box.
• We can only change the wrapping on the box.
• Hey, I like the box the way it is.
• What the hell are you talking about Haberman?

Vote for one and send me an answer.

Are Men In HR Going the Way of the Dinosaur?

I was reading some of my mail this morning as I was wondering what to write about today. One newsletter I get is The Keen Thinker, written by the folks at 800CEOread. (This is a resource I highly recommend. They give you the scoop on all the business books being produced today. I get there Keen Thinker newsletter, their daily blog, and the weekly In Bubble Wrap which gives books away. I have gotten two in the past.) In this most recent issue of The Keen Thinker Carol Grossmeyer, owner of 800-CEO-READ, reviews and recommends The Female Vision by Sally Helgesen & Julie Johnson.


In her review Ms. Grossmeyer writes "Sally Helgesen, bestselling author of The Female Advantage, and Julie Johnson, a pioneer in executive coaching, have written a book that explains the difference in how men and women approach the business world." She further says "Through research, well-documented studies and personal experience stories, Helgesen and Johnson explain in The Female Vision what women “notice,” how they value what they “see,” and how that vision can be a powerful tool at all levels of the business world. But because, for the most part, business schools teach a singular “male” vision (“women's attention operates like a radar, picking up signals across a wide spectrum, whereas men's attention operates like a laser, focusing on a single point in depth”), the traditional workplace is not structured to recognize women’s, often more subjective, observations."


Ms. Grossmeyer quotes several sections of the book that talk about "The lack of attention to and lack of respect for women’s ways of seeing, their holistic approach to motivation, and their perception of worth and satisfaction has put our marketplace—and culture in general— at a grave disadvantage." 
One quote that caught my eye in particular is "The value women place on relationships has increasing marketplace value. Changes in the nature of technology have made relationships—with customers, clients, suppliers, competitors, shareholders, and the community as well as within the organization itself—a far more vital resource for organizations than in years past."


Reading this got me to thinking about the field of Human Resources. It is no secret that in the past few decades that the field has become female dominated. You only have to go to a conference to see that. (Anyone have the figures for male vs. female attendance in San Diego?) My own observation from teaching the PHR/SPHR prep classes over the past 13 years shows that attendance in those classes has been at least 80% female. If you read HR blogs a large number are written by women. (PunkRockHR, The HR Minion, The HR Bartender, Profitability Through Human Capital, the HR Ringleader just to name a few.) There are some notable men, Kris Dunn, Lance Haun and Mike Vandervort, that come to mind. But many of the men are in specialties that might be considered "male" such as labor, technology and recruiting (finding prey?).

So given that and the increasing marketplace value of women's view of relationships I ask myself am I a member of a dying breed, a male in HR? Is the time of Men in HR past?

What do you think? Are men in HR going extinct? And why?

(By the way if you are interested in the book The Female Vision you can get it through 800CEORead here or at Amazon The Female Vision: Women's Real Power at Work. I will be putting it on my reading list. )

Have a VOICE in HR and Use It: Being a Credible Activist

I had the very good fortune to spend a day, yesterday, with professor, author, consultant, and HR thought guru, Dave Ulrich. (Of course there were another 200 people there as well). He had a long "conversation" with us about the field of HR and what it takes to be an HR professional today. He talked about how HR can transform organinzations and what competencies it takes to do so. Much of this is detailed in his book HR Competencies (shown at the right). If you are serious about your career in HR and you feel you need to take it to the next step then you need to read this book and internalize what you learn.

I could write a very long post on these competencies, but I won't. But I do want to mention the NUMBER ONE competency that Ulrich et al. have determined to be most important in the 21st century. That is the competency of CREDIBLE ACTIVIST. Credible is believable, credible is knowing what you are talking about, credible is knowing about business and your business in particular. Alot of HR people consider themselves credible. The jury is still out on whether their CEOs consider them credible. (Mostly because of the business knowledge requirement.) One of the reasons the CEO does not consider HR credible is HR has NO VOICE. Many HR people "speak when spoken to" and do not offer opinions on the business. 

This is where the second word in this competency comes into play. ACTIVIST. This does not mean that you have to be a rabble-rouser (click the link for the definition). It means that you have to stand up and offer opinions and points of view. And you don't  wait to be asked. Offer your points of view BEFORE anyone asks you what you think. And have opinions and points of view on more than just HR topics. If you know your business (another competency) then you should be able to talk about operations, marketing, branding, finance, etc. Being an activist means you are not afraid to be contrarian. Your management "partners" may not listen to what you have to say, particularly at first, but you need to use your voice regardless.

Some of the people sitting at my table indicated they were afraid to do that. They were afraid to speak up, even when they knew things being done were wrong. One person said she "picked her battles carefully." Another said she did not speak up because she did not really know the business because she had NEVER spent any field time with employees. She was "too busy" doing her work. (I probably rolled my eyes big time at this.) I know many HR people are not activists because they naturally are "conflict avoiders". And speaking up can lead to a confrontation. But if you know you are right you need to have that confrontation and you don't need to, and should not, back down. I used to work for an HR manager that had so little back bone I was surprised he was able to stand up. Well I don't need to get off on that rant.

Many of the credible activists I know are also bloggers. Two of my favorite (among many) are Laurie Ruettimann of PunkRockHR and Kris Dunn of The HR Capitalist. I call Laurie a "beast sticker". She is not afraid to take a sharp stick and poke the "beast of HR". She can be profane, and I don't always agree with her, but she is fun to read because she riles people. She has been accused of not being "credible" because she does not currently hold a "real" HR position. HOGWASH, this lady knows her stuff. Kris is also a beast sticker. He is in my opinion as close to being the ultimate HR pro there is. He is what I want to be when I grow up, despite the fact that I am 20 years older than he is. In fact he beat me to this same topic. As I was driving home to Atlanta from Birmingham last night and thinking about this topic he had already beat me to the punch. You can read his very well written take on CREDIBLE ACTIVIST by clicking on his name above.

BTW, Dave Ulrich says that one of the first steps in being credible in the 21st century is certification. So think a second time about getting that PHR or SPHR.

Closing thought- Become a pro, find your voice and exercise it frequently. Learn from Laurie, Kris, and a myriad of other bloggers on what to say, how to say it, and in the words of Nike, "JUST DO IT."

HR is Dead: Some Mourn, Some Celebrate and Others Say "WHAT??"

There has been a very lively discussion about the death of HR being argued on several blogs, most notably at Laurie Ruettiman's Punk Rock HR where she posted HR is Dying: Yes or No? and at Mike VanDervort's the Human Race Horse where he posted HR-Not Dead Yet. These two posts brought a lot of reaction that was wide and varied. Some celebrated that HR was dying. Some said a vehement NO. Many said the field needs to be revamped. Many identified what is wrong with HR and others offered some solutions.

These two posts are very thought provoking and MUST be read by anyone in HR. Read the comments and add your own. But most importantly learn from these posts. Reflect on your situation. If you are in the "dying" camp what do you suggest will take HR's place?

If you are in the "needs improvement" category how would you restructure things to get the improvement?

If you are in the "HR is just fine" category, well I suggest you reread these two posts and the long comment strings.

I personally don't think HR is dead or dying. I do think it needs to morph, just not quite sure how, but I am working on a plan.

ISM: Three Little Letters That Mean So Many Things

A couple of weeks ago on Twitter (follow me at http://twitter.com/MikeHaberman ) I made a comment about AGEISM. I even wrote a blog about Ageism in the Workplace. Laurie Ruettimann of Punk Rock HR fame came back and made comment to the effect that we seem to have an "ism" in alot of areas. And indeed we do. Racism, the big ISM of the HR world and probably one of the most prevalent ISMs in the United States is once again in the news. Here in Georgia, and elsewhere, rascism is being claimed as the reason people are against a national healthcare plan which has been labled as ObamaCare. (I am not going to get into a discussion on that at the moment so don't roll your eyes and close me down.) But we have also seen recently agesim and sexism. We in HR tend to equate ISM to discrimination. So we may some day end up with "fatism", "shortism", "dumbism", "poorism", "richism" and who knows what else.

But this got me to thinking. What exactly is ISM? So here is the lesson.

1. Ism is a noun which means a particular doctrine, system or theory.


2. But it is also used as a suffix to specify what particular doctrine, system or theory, e.g., pacifism, Catholicism, Darwinism, anthropomorphism, and hedonism (my favorite).


3. It is a suffix that also defines an action, such as terroism; defines a characteristic, such as heroism; a state or condition that results from an excess of something, such as strychninism; or a distinctive or characteristic trait, such as Latinism.


4. It is also an acronym for about at least 50 different organizations as well as Internet and business usage.


5. It is a punk rock/alternative rock band in New York.


6. In Arabic it means a personal name.

So alot of usage for three little letters. Over the coming weeks I will be exploring the one defintion of it that seems prevalent in Human Resources "An attitude of prejuidice against a given group." I will look at racism, ageism, sexism, etc. from a human resources perspective and maybe a little social/scientific perspective as well. So stay tuned.

Compromise, Old Ways and Reform: Why EFCA Is So Important

I know alot of people are tired of the discussions on the Employee Free Choice Act. Laurie Ruettimann of Punk Rock Human Resources is a leader in this respect with her blog post of EFCA: I'm Bored. She says this is a tired discussion and that labor and management both missed an opportunity to come up with a new way of conducting labor relations.

Arlen Spector, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania and a key vote on EFCA, has publicly announced he will not support the bill, thus eliminating the possibility of a vote of cloture. (Cloture means closure. Here is an explanation of it from the Senate.) In his remarks Specter also suggested that the National Labor Relations Act needed an overall. Michael Moore, at the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog, gives a detailed explanation of Specter's remarks. My reading of this overall actually sounds still too biased in favor of unions and is not much more than another way of institutionalizing EFCA.

I am in agreement with both Ruettimann and Specter. It is time to look at modernizing and revising labor laws passed in the 1930's and 1940's. The world is a much different place now with a much different workforce. However, in order to do that both sides of the table must be interested and UNIONS are not interested in doing that. They see this time and this administration as an opportunity to regain power, using old methods and old tactics that perpetuate old union points of view. Why negotiate a new way of doing things if you think the deck is stacked in your favor? (explanation of that idiom)

That is why it is important to defeat this law! Passage will not bring about a new, even way of doing things. It will bring about a new way of doing the old things and it will be in favor of the unions. And once that is done it will be a long-time before we get reform.