Ask HN: Why most of the HR Departments suck?
Although I have worked only in IT industry, I have seen and experienced this over many years. Most of the HR departments for function very badly. I wonder why!
12 comments
HR doesn't attract great talent. I know, because I almost ended up in a career in HR (I hope it's not too presumptuous to consider myself great talent).
I was genuinely interested in learning about how organizations can improve performance through a focus on people. That's why I went to Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relations (which is regarded by many as the best HR program in the world though most students don't end up going into HR). I also interned in HR for two summers at a medium sized company.
After a lot of HR classes and two summers in a 5-person HR office, I was certain that HR was not for me. It's a field that has the potential to be interesting and have a major effect on businesses, but in practice HR is boring (except for the fact that you hear all of the company gossip first) and generally ineffective.
The truth is that most of the important stuff that could fall under HR is taken on by managers and executive leadership. The HR department gets the administrative stuff.
When I started thinking about my future, I realized that HR couldn't take me anywhere else. My best possible outcome would be a role as VP of HR or doing some sort of HR consulting. It wasn't for me—I wanted to be closer to the business.
The odd thing is that I really enjoyed my classes and internships. I got to work on exciting stuff. But I knew that it wouldn't get any better. There was nothing to look forward to.
I was genuinely interested in learning about how organizations can improve performance through a focus on people. That's why I went to Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relations (which is regarded by many as the best HR program in the world though most students don't end up going into HR). I also interned in HR for two summers at a medium sized company.
After a lot of HR classes and two summers in a 5-person HR office, I was certain that HR was not for me. It's a field that has the potential to be interesting and have a major effect on businesses, but in practice HR is boring (except for the fact that you hear all of the company gossip first) and generally ineffective.
The truth is that most of the important stuff that could fall under HR is taken on by managers and executive leadership. The HR department gets the administrative stuff.
When I started thinking about my future, I realized that HR couldn't take me anywhere else. My best possible outcome would be a role as VP of HR or doing some sort of HR consulting. It wasn't for me—I wanted to be closer to the business.
The odd thing is that I really enjoyed my classes and internships. I got to work on exciting stuff. But I knew that it wouldn't get any better. There was nothing to look forward to.
As a senior manager type, I hire people for Human Resources to prevent disgruntled employees and intentionally bad outcomes to my decisions with people and local governments from taking everything we've built in some over inflated complaint or class action. You'll see how easy it can happen after a few mistakes are made.
Lawyers and HR aren't required to be nice, just act nice. Finding a creative and caring HR professionals that can help your organization grow in a positive way, in full compliance with thousands of little things (and with as few impacts to the employee, manager and investors lives) is actually a great investment for any company, especially one growing up with a strong financial reality.
On hiring: I haven't used an HR department to hire since 1995. I've typically worked with outside parties to gather pools of resources and my best method of hiring has been through self-directed job advertisements that I handled from first to last contact. When I can't handle it, or I don't have really the right skill set to evaluate deeper understanding in the candidate, I delegate the hiring decision and help the hiring employee complete the process properly.
Lawyers and HR aren't required to be nice, just act nice. Finding a creative and caring HR professionals that can help your organization grow in a positive way, in full compliance with thousands of little things (and with as few impacts to the employee, manager and investors lives) is actually a great investment for any company, especially one growing up with a strong financial reality.
On hiring: I haven't used an HR department to hire since 1995. I've typically worked with outside parties to gather pools of resources and my best method of hiring has been through self-directed job advertisements that I handled from first to last contact. When I can't handle it, or I don't have really the right skill set to evaluate deeper understanding in the candidate, I delegate the hiring decision and help the hiring employee complete the process properly.
I think, like almost every other problem, it's a matter of [not] getting the right people for the job. The HR employees I've interacted with have, almost to a T, been completely process-bound and extremely hesitant to take any kind of initiative or show independent thought. They aren't problem solvers, they're process followers. Even when the process is causing unnecessary problems, they follow it unless directed otherwise. The result is the suck you're describing.
I think the reason is fairly simple, although the solution might not be. Folks who have strong soft skills but lack critical thinking ability aren't going to flock to engineering or finance, for example. Even if they made it in the door, they wouldn't last. These people might work in sales, but sales seems to select for a certain ambition and ruthlessness that many people just don't have. If you look at the pool that's left, there just aren't a lot of qualities left that would add value apart from following a process, and in that case, those employees will only be as valuable as the process lets them. So what you get is sucky process (because the company doesn't want to expose itself to lawsuits or get taken advantage of) and sucky employees who don't know when or how to circumvent the process when it becomes counterproductive. Add those together, and you get an HR department that functions very badly and, at best, adds a kind of cynical WTF entertainment value to the employees it's supposed to help.
I think the reason is fairly simple, although the solution might not be. Folks who have strong soft skills but lack critical thinking ability aren't going to flock to engineering or finance, for example. Even if they made it in the door, they wouldn't last. These people might work in sales, but sales seems to select for a certain ambition and ruthlessness that many people just don't have. If you look at the pool that's left, there just aren't a lot of qualities left that would add value apart from following a process, and in that case, those employees will only be as valuable as the process lets them. So what you get is sucky process (because the company doesn't want to expose itself to lawsuits or get taken advantage of) and sucky employees who don't know when or how to circumvent the process when it becomes counterproductive. Add those together, and you get an HR department that functions very badly and, at best, adds a kind of cynical WTF entertainment value to the employees it's supposed to help.
Because most employees are not the 'customers' of the HR department. They are the 'product'. (The same way as viewers of a TV channel are not the customers of that channel, they are the product, and the advertisers are the customers, except that it is much easier to switch TV channels, than to switch companies.)
This means that the average HR department cares suprisingly little about pleasing the average employee. They will worry much more about pleasing management, etc.
This means that the average HR department cares suprisingly little about pleasing the average employee. They will worry much more about pleasing management, etc.
I think, I found an answer here. :)
I think a lot of it comes from trying to protect/justify their jobs by introducing process etc. See also "why do most IT departments suck"?
Because they're a cost centre not a profit centre. Hiring talented people to work in cost centres is always hard.
You don't say what "bad" means.
My experience at larger companies is that, beyond providing the basics, (payroll, benefits), an HR department exists to protect the company from being sued by current and former employees.
My experience at larger companies is that, beyond providing the basics, (payroll, benefits), an HR department exists to protect the company from being sued by current and former employees.
Ok, here are few examples of being bad:
1) No communication, whatsoever, when somebody is expecting an answer - especially, during recruitment process. All I meant is just a confirmation - "We have received all the documents we needed to prepare the offer; kindly allow us till Monday evening to get back to you."
2) Mistakes (Name/Joining Date/Designation) in official correspondence. Larger companies might be getting this correct by having a central database driving everything; but those with less than 500 employees act really bad here.
3) Not intimating enough in advance about events. E.g. I received a mail about a next morning's get-together just the evening before; and that day I had left office 15 minutes early and obviously didn't check the office mail that night (I never do) - thereby completely missing the get-together; many people in the office did. This happens often. I know, it might not be very common across many companies; but I am just giving specific examples of 'bad functions'.
4) Last minute preparations. Some time ago I had to travel abroad. After reminding almost every day during the final week before traveling, I was handed over all the document just a couple of hours in advance. The tickets, too, were booked with unnecessary delay; leaving me with very little scope for advanced planning. The hotel bill wasn't settled so I had to use my credit card on arrival and then claim reimbursement. Again, just giving an example of what happened with me - I am sure, other people might be experiencing similar things.
5) Attitude. I understand, HR is an important function in any organization. But one needs to understand that, especially in IT industry (or any manufacturing industry), non-technical departments are just support staff. They are there to facilitate the technical guys to make the production happen. The HR people should be highly accessible and easily approachable; very hard to find.
I can give few more examples, but I hope you might have got an idea of what I wanted to say.
1) No communication, whatsoever, when somebody is expecting an answer - especially, during recruitment process. All I meant is just a confirmation - "We have received all the documents we needed to prepare the offer; kindly allow us till Monday evening to get back to you."
2) Mistakes (Name/Joining Date/Designation) in official correspondence. Larger companies might be getting this correct by having a central database driving everything; but those with less than 500 employees act really bad here.
3) Not intimating enough in advance about events. E.g. I received a mail about a next morning's get-together just the evening before; and that day I had left office 15 minutes early and obviously didn't check the office mail that night (I never do) - thereby completely missing the get-together; many people in the office did. This happens often. I know, it might not be very common across many companies; but I am just giving specific examples of 'bad functions'.
4) Last minute preparations. Some time ago I had to travel abroad. After reminding almost every day during the final week before traveling, I was handed over all the document just a couple of hours in advance. The tickets, too, were booked with unnecessary delay; leaving me with very little scope for advanced planning. The hotel bill wasn't settled so I had to use my credit card on arrival and then claim reimbursement. Again, just giving an example of what happened with me - I am sure, other people might be experiencing similar things.
5) Attitude. I understand, HR is an important function in any organization. But one needs to understand that, especially in IT industry (or any manufacturing industry), non-technical departments are just support staff. They are there to facilitate the technical guys to make the production happen. The HR people should be highly accessible and easily approachable; very hard to find.
I can give few more examples, but I hope you might have got an idea of what I wanted to say.
A paraphrased email exchange I had last week:
HR recruiter: When are you available for a phone interview?
Me: I am available Tuesday mornings and Thursdays before 4pm.
HR recruiter auto-message: you have been scheduled for a phone interview with Scott (no-reference to who Scott is) on Tuesday at 4pm.
Me: WTF?
HR recruiter: When are you available for a phone interview?
Me: I am available Tuesday mornings and Thursdays before 4pm.
HR recruiter auto-message: you have been scheduled for a phone interview with Scott (no-reference to who Scott is) on Tuesday at 4pm.
Me: WTF?
"HR department exists to protect the company from being sued by current and former employees"
This is, of course, true.
There is a surprising amount of work involved in making sure that the company operates within the bounds of employment law. From basics, such as minimum wage, or correct application of tax credits/benefits to payroll, to ensuring that discrimination does not take place in hiring/promotions, that disciplinary processes are within the letter AND spirit of the law, to banal, such as carrying out exit interviews - ensuring that there are no buried issues about to explode.
Their more useful proceedural functions: training staff to conduct interviews within the law, ensuring performance appraisals are carried out, that staff ratios are in-line with "industry norms", or that salaries are competitive.
And finally, the stuff that most of them would actually prefer to do: ensuring that training happens, that the best staff are retained and have their career appropriately managed, that hiring of new employees is as simple as possible whilst being legal.
Of course, the only way this gets done if HR is not "embedded", is through policy and procedure. and discussion with management (not managers). As HR is a cost centre, and increasingly being outsourced (many of these functions are now seen as requiring only occasional consulting, and not full time attentions), I don't see things improving.
Also, the systems they have are shockingly crap. shudder at Oracle HR support software.
This is, of course, true.
There is a surprising amount of work involved in making sure that the company operates within the bounds of employment law. From basics, such as minimum wage, or correct application of tax credits/benefits to payroll, to ensuring that discrimination does not take place in hiring/promotions, that disciplinary processes are within the letter AND spirit of the law, to banal, such as carrying out exit interviews - ensuring that there are no buried issues about to explode.
Their more useful proceedural functions: training staff to conduct interviews within the law, ensuring performance appraisals are carried out, that staff ratios are in-line with "industry norms", or that salaries are competitive.
And finally, the stuff that most of them would actually prefer to do: ensuring that training happens, that the best staff are retained and have their career appropriately managed, that hiring of new employees is as simple as possible whilst being legal.
Of course, the only way this gets done if HR is not "embedded", is through policy and procedure. and discussion with management (not managers). As HR is a cost centre, and increasingly being outsourced (many of these functions are now seen as requiring only occasional consulting, and not full time attentions), I don't see things improving.
Also, the systems they have are shockingly crap. shudder at Oracle HR support software.
I had a startup idea last night that was hoping to address this very problem, though it was more focused on call-centers than other things.