Change management is an opportunity HR could drive a truck through
There has been talk for years about how people in HR want to become strategic business partners. “But it was largely academics writing about this stuff, in the real world people were just kind of slogging along,” says leading strategic HR expert and author, David Bratton.
There were lots of people reading the books but typically the response was, “Sure, that’s great, but it wouldn’t work here,” says Bratton.
But now a growing number of people outside of HR are buying into the importance of strategic HR management. Why the change? Change itself.
“The whole issue of managing change, that is where HR is converging with organizational strategy,” says Bratton.
Recent history is replete with examples of failed mergers and disappointing change initiatives. CEOs are realizing that the reason for so many failures is because they haven’t been able to implement a strategy that worked. “That is where HR people have an opportunity they could drive a truck through.”
“The CEO is the person who struggles with these things. This is not the specialty of marketing or finance or operations. Who can help the CEO make change work in an organization? HR,” he says.
“They (HR) are the enablers, they are the ones who should know about change and develop strategies to make it work.”
He cites as an example an organization in the wealth management business that wanted to introduce a new service. “The marketing people had put this plan together, but when I talked to the HR people, they had looked at the research and tried to figure out how they could support the strategy.” They needed to know how fast it was going to happen and what credentials staff would need, because if time allowed money would be saved by developing people internally, if not people would need to be recruited from outside the organization.
Another firm launched a new international expansion plan that was based on growth through acquisition. HR was heavily involved making sure the right people were in the right positions so that the expansion would succeed. The company’s senior management wanted to know that their management philosophy would be applied in their international operations, rather than just hiring people locally and allowing them to run things the way local outfits did.
Too often in the past, due diligence was done by accountants and lawyers, when it was lack of culture fit that undermined so many mergers, says Bratton.
Even for organizations where the change is perhaps not so grand, HR can make an impact on the bottom line and nothing gets the attention of the CEO more than an improved bottom line.
One of the areas where HR can really have a positive effect on the bottom line is with a well-structured compensation plan, he says. There should be a clear connection between compensation and the delivery of organizational goals. But in too many cases, people get paid just to show up for work, put in their day and go home, says Bratton.
The old merit pay system, where employees get an annual review and someone decides if they get a one- two- or three-per-cent raise based on what they did that year, does little to drive performance for the year ahead.
And — again after years of talk — work-life balance is actually becoming a priority. Sept. 11 and a year of economic woe have a lot of people feeling down and looking for their employers to treat them better than they have in the past and respect that they have lives away from the office.
“I think people are feeling pretty beaten up by organization life today,” says Bratton. “There is a lot of broken promises and broken faith.”
There were lots of people reading the books but typically the response was, “Sure, that’s great, but it wouldn’t work here,” says Bratton.
But now a growing number of people outside of HR are buying into the importance of strategic HR management. Why the change? Change itself.
“The whole issue of managing change, that is where HR is converging with organizational strategy,” says Bratton.
Recent history is replete with examples of failed mergers and disappointing change initiatives. CEOs are realizing that the reason for so many failures is because they haven’t been able to implement a strategy that worked. “That is where HR people have an opportunity they could drive a truck through.”
“The CEO is the person who struggles with these things. This is not the specialty of marketing or finance or operations. Who can help the CEO make change work in an organization? HR,” he says.
“They (HR) are the enablers, they are the ones who should know about change and develop strategies to make it work.”
He cites as an example an organization in the wealth management business that wanted to introduce a new service. “The marketing people had put this plan together, but when I talked to the HR people, they had looked at the research and tried to figure out how they could support the strategy.” They needed to know how fast it was going to happen and what credentials staff would need, because if time allowed money would be saved by developing people internally, if not people would need to be recruited from outside the organization.
Another firm launched a new international expansion plan that was based on growth through acquisition. HR was heavily involved making sure the right people were in the right positions so that the expansion would succeed. The company’s senior management wanted to know that their management philosophy would be applied in their international operations, rather than just hiring people locally and allowing them to run things the way local outfits did.
Too often in the past, due diligence was done by accountants and lawyers, when it was lack of culture fit that undermined so many mergers, says Bratton.
Even for organizations where the change is perhaps not so grand, HR can make an impact on the bottom line and nothing gets the attention of the CEO more than an improved bottom line.
One of the areas where HR can really have a positive effect on the bottom line is with a well-structured compensation plan, he says. There should be a clear connection between compensation and the delivery of organizational goals. But in too many cases, people get paid just to show up for work, put in their day and go home, says Bratton.
The old merit pay system, where employees get an annual review and someone decides if they get a one- two- or three-per-cent raise based on what they did that year, does little to drive performance for the year ahead.
And — again after years of talk — work-life balance is actually becoming a priority. Sept. 11 and a year of economic woe have a lot of people feeling down and looking for their employers to treat them better than they have in the past and respect that they have lives away from the office.
“I think people are feeling pretty beaten up by organization life today,” says Bratton. “There is a lot of broken promises and broken faith.”
