These days in my coaching practice, I can’t help but wonder if corporate America has lost the “H” in Human Resources. Or maybe they’ve outsourced the “H” to machines, certainly a strange irony.
Here’s the situation that really triggered this candidly cynical conclusion.
For several months, I’ve been coaching a sales manager who leads a team of reps for a global business in the technology industry. Our coaching sessions have focused on strengthening his team leadership and performance management skills. He’s made excellent progress in both these areas. Nevertheless, one gnawing issue has clouded much of his progress: recruiting qualified new hires.
Cultivating and retaining talent is clearly a central responsibility for sales managers and both aspects impact team performance. Sales leaders are also expected to establish objectives aligned with the corporate vision, shape and orchestrate sales strategy, clearly communicate expectations and support each rep’s growth, development and overall success. Often, the sales leader also contributes individually to closing new business. That’s a lot do for any leader.
There’s another equally important capability, however, essential for a sales leader’s performance: recruiting talent. The process of prospecting, identifying and vetting talent is enormously important for the sales leader’s success and the organization that employs them. The process of hiring new talent can be extremely time consuming and requires very specific knowledge about sourcing talent and hiring best practices.
Leaving the process entirely in the hands of the sales manager strikes me as a highly inefficient use of sales talent, particularly those who are relatively new to their leadership roles.
I’ve always assumed that the human resources department were responsible for making this happen. Now, I’m wondering how widespread this practice is.
Home Alone?
For weeks, I wondered why my client was having so much difficulty recruiting new talent. The fear of not finding qualified new reps hindered my client from having candid conversations with reps who showed little motivation, an unwillingness to take steps to improve and delivered mediocre results, at best.
As a result, my client was less willing to: establish clear expectations, confront the reps when their behavior blatantly deviated from established norms, or ask probing questions to understand and explore the best path forward. The tension from this situation created significant stress for my client, leading to considerable “bottled-up” frustration and anger that spilled over into his other activities. It was through our conversations that the true disruptive power of this emerged as my client realized there were many negative second order effects.
Listening to my client, I began to notice that human resources never entered the conversation —it was as if my client was on his own, without any support from this functional area. So finally, I asked him the following question:
“You know, when I listen to you talk about your recruiting challenges, it makes me wonder what resources are available to support you. What is available and what have you explored?”
My client, who works for one of the largest global technology corporations, thought for a moment, and said the following:
“Well, a few years ago, the people in human resources that supported us disappeared. Today, we can only submit forms to make requests, and hope that somebody gets back to us. Here, HR for us has for all intensive purposes disappeared—everything is automated.”
I found his response both surprising and shocking. In a company with more than $50B in sales, the entire recruiting process, at least in Sales, had been devolved to the sales managers themselves. These sales leaders could no longer leverage the “human resources” department to drive new applicants to fill the new hire pipeline, guide the interviewing process or negotiate the package. My client knew nothing about recruiting sources, interviewing best practices, nor negotiating the package.
I was dumbfounded.
A Chorus of Disdain In Dinner Conversation
On the heels of this coaching session, I attended a pot-luck dinner party with a mix of people affiliated with two elite universities in Cambridge, MA who are (several from the business schools) in senior leadership positions in higher ed and corporate America. At one point in the evening, sitting at a large table in the kitchen, I shared my coaching experience with this client.
Here’s what I heard from those in the room:
“Your client is lucky – HR is good for nothing”
“Good riddance. They have been replaced by automation for a reason.”
“HR works for the CEO. They don’t give a $h1T about the employees.”
“HR has no clue how to find talent – they lack the knowledge and the skills to do it well”
The emphatic nature of the comments took me aback. Not a single person showed any inclination to defend the human resources function. The disdain was palpable, angry and comprehensive.
During my career, I always felt—at least viscerally— that many people did not trust the human resources department. And candidly, I was no exception. When in the company of a human resources employee, I always assumed that what I said would make it’s way to the CEO’s ear and could be used against me at some point.
The next day (yesterday), I spent some time thinking about their reaction at this dinner, and hence, I’m writing this article.
If people with considerable senior leadership experience disrespect the human resources function so much, I wondered, how it could do its “job.” Sure, overseeing the payroll companies and the benefits providers is mandatory and beneficial, albeit low value add and done primarily through automation.
But if employees do not respect HR—for recruiting, for onboarding new employees, for creating a positive work environment, training and development and protecting employees from aberrant behavior—where are they expected to turn for this support? Is a corporation today an amalgamation of single shingle entrepreneurs? Is HR now an automated machine without a human face?
What IS Human Resources?
At the risk sounding Clintonian,” it occurred to me that I was not entirely clear on why this functional area is named “Human Resources.” Does this mean it is responsible for provisioning resources to humans, otherwise known as employees? Or was it a department responsible for attracting, cultivating and retaining human capital?” Or maybe it’s simply another coercive tool in the CEO’s tool box?
A generally accepted definition is probably this: “the department responsible for managing workforce-related matters.”1
That’s an extremely broad definition. In most of my coaching conversations, when human resources is mentioned, it’s related to DEI initiatives. Candidly, this is a sore point for many who initially perceived this training as valuable and now view it as repetitive and unhelpful.
In my interactions with clients, I see minimal support for recruiting, interviewing and onboarding new employees. I listen to complaints about a lack of responsiveness and a general lack of trust.
Another Elephant in the Room
In a recent SHRM survey, when asked “What is the ideal role of HR?” the No. 1 response from HR leaders and professionals was to “Create a positive employee experience.” The No. 1 response from employees, however, was to “Keep the company out of legal trouble.” So the disconnect is obvious.
In the same 2022-2023 SHRM State of the Workplace Report, in response to the question “How would you grade your HR department’s overall effectiveness during 2022,” 60% of employees responded with a grade of C, D, or F. Only 10% gave an A. On the other hand, 74% of HR professionals gave themselves As and Bs and 86% of HR executives gave responded with As and Bs. 33% of this group awarded themselves an “A”.
What Is Productivity?
So let’s come back to the question: is “human” still part of the Human Resources department? If you look at my client’s experience, I would suggest not so much. On the other hand, if the new technology creates automation that can put the “human” back in Human Resources, well then, yes, it is part of the function.
In a world where a majority of employees don’t respect the Human Resources department and award them a “C’ or lower, it won’t really matter. If senior leaders view human resources as a coercive tool uniquely used to drive immediate productivity vs. a strategic resource, and the goal is to automate the function and stay out of trouble, than perhaps the name should be changed. In this scenario, from the employee’s point of view, there’s little ‘“human” left in the HR department.
About David Ehrenthal
After a 25+ year career as a marketing executive and CEO, in the US and Europe, David created Mach10 Career & Leadership Coaching in 2021. He now coaches many clients interested in growing their leadership effectiveness and advancing their careers.
Please email David at dehrenthal@mach10career.com or give him a ring at 617-529-8795 if you want to talk.