Ultimate success in HR is that we work with business leaders to drive successful human capital decisions, structure and processes that result in tangible improvements to the success of the organization. To be successful in this type of "Business Driver" role takes time to build critical relationships, really understand the business, establish and evaluate metrics, effectively network, etc.

For those who wish to attain this level, there are things we have to let go of in order to free up time for the above "Important but not urgent" activities. I'd like to get some of your thoughts on those things that as HR professionals we can "give up" in order to free up more time.

For example, will the business crash and burn if we don't hold their hand through every individual employee performance issue? If we empower leaders to make their own judgements in this regard, they'll learn and gain confidence in their abilities either through their success or their failure. Yes it is a risk, but how much do we blow that risk out of proportion in HR? Is our job really to be the ones that make sure no one messes up decisions related to employees? If so, we'll likely never be a successful business driver.

What takes up a lot of your time that if you pushed off your plate and empowered the business would allow you the time necessary to be a successful Business Driver?

The Social Media Buzz

In HR, we seem to like talking about broad based topics that are looming as difficulties in our profession. We talk about the problem of employee engagement and needing to be employers of choice. We talk about aging of the workforce and the looming crises as Baby Boomers retire. We talk about the different generations at work and how complicated it is to make everyone happy. The boogie man under the bed, and many other bad things.

They are all very real topics but I'm always curious as to what, if anything, we actually do to deal with the issues. For instance, everyone is talking about Social Media right now. But do organizations see that social media could help to create different relationships with their employees? Could help engage the younger generations? Could help to get work done?

I recently participated in a Canadian survey regarding the current use of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, wikis, etc. in the workplace. The results are in - 71% of employers participating have full on restrictions on using the internet at work, and only 17% use some type of social media to communicate with their employees. Email is still by far the number one way for communicating in the workplace. Seems like there is lots of talk but no action.

If your organization is like many, we all seem to be doing more with less (people I mean). We have a majority of employees who sit somewhere in the two youngest generations in the workforce. We are always looking for ways to communicate with our people. Get them engaged. Help them feel fulfilled at work. Empower them. Ultimately have them produce more output (whatever that is).

Perhaps now is the time to move beyond email and meetings and move to instant messaging with team mates across the country, social networks of co-workers interested in solving common work problems, and access to information that will help people be creative and inspired.

The survey shows that organizations are very slow to adopt social media as a legitimate way to get work done. I wonder how long it will take before the advantages are seen to out weigh the disadvantages? Before we stop talking and start acting.

What do you think? What Does Success in HR Look Like?

One of the discussions my HR Unplugged colleagues and I have all the time is about success in HR. What does it look like? Sound like? Smell like (OK...maybe not smell...)

The field of HR has gone from personnel management to human resource management. We hear constantly about being a business partner and having a seat at the executive table. Are these measures of success? And what does having a 'seat at the table actually mean'?

My colleagues sometime talk about being business professionals with a people focus to describe who we are. We discuss having a seat at the business leaders table every day, not just at an 'executive' table once in a while, as a measure of our success. This blog post at fistfuloftalent.com starts to get at what our HR team has been trying to achieve.

How do you describe your work as an HR professional? How do you measure your success?

We'd like to hear from you.

How legit are you?

A physician gets respect largely due to the things they've learned through school and a rigorous practicum. An engineer needs to reach high standards of proven knowledge and apply it before they get their professional designation. An electrician earns their stripes through a structured education and apprenticeship program. When the general public hears the word M.D., P.Eng. or Electrician, they have a general trust that these individuals, unless proven otherwise, can deliver in their areas of expertise.

Enter the HR profession. The audience that we're trying to impress is not so much the general public, but the business leaders in our company. My question to you is, where does your legitimacy come from as an HR professional? What makes you (or would make you) a good business partner (or business driver) in the eyes of business leaders where you work? I'm going to open things up to a discussion about HR designations (CHRP in Canada).

My personal aim in the HR profession is to be an internal business driver that works with the company to ensure people are effective, and that our people practices contribute to the bottom line. The other side of this bottom-line contribution, is that they shouldn't be overly complex as to distract employees from a focus on growth or productivity.

To what extent will my time be well spent working towards my CHRP versus job shadowing, studying company financials, questioning various business leaders on our operations or hanging-out on the shop floor? I'd love to hear your comments about the relative importance of an HR designation in our quest to become effective business partners. What opportunities are there to tailor HR designations more towards getting us that long discussed seat at the leadership table?

"Cut the Crap" HR Business Partner Recruiting

The ultimate end in being a business partner is to be a key player in driving the direction of the business. Two ultimate examples I’ve seen are HR manager being the out of office business contact for an area manager, and a VP of HR who was trusted to take a VP role in the business.

In my experience, really successful business partners (business drivers) have three common attributes:
1. Personality - Likeable, Charismatic, REAL/authentic
2. Confidently Persuasive
3. Posesses a strong grasp of how people impact business success that they can articulate in the language of business leaders

So if these are really the types of people we're looking for, do we continue to use standard techniques to hire the right people? What are some ways we can "cut the crap" out of our recruiting processes to target our hiring to successful HR business partners?

Interested to hear your thoughts. Here are some UNPLUGGED ideas on assessing business partner candidate fit (we'll leave it to you to determine which ones we've actually heard of being used, and which haven't) We'd love to hear your ideas...please add them in the comments.

-Pre-warn the candidate that the interview may last 15 minutes to an hour. Don't waste an hour if you know there's no hope...give them feedback on the spot and save yourself an email or phone call later.
-Likeability: Score on your assesment guide about how you'd feel after a 5 hour plane ride beside them.
-Persuasiveness: Have them try to persuade you of the merits of a 5-hour workday
-Business Understanding: Case study interview including some basic financials
-Likeability: "Date" the candidate - Go to a sporting event, take them bowling or have a casual lunch with them to get a sense of their authenticity and find out what they're really about
-Persuasiveness: Send them out with a salesperson for your company and see how well they can sell your product
-Persuasiveness: When they come in for an interview, send them to a business leader to deal with an actual HR issue...talk to the business leader after to see how they did.
-Persuasiveness/Authenticity: Ask them in the interview why you should offer them the job. Challenge their responses: How do you know you want the job? What makes you think you'd be successful here?

What are some other "cut the crap" ways to effectively assess a good business partner without spending hours on those who are not a good fit? Be creative...

Is this you?

To CHRP or not to CHRP

When it comes to the CHRP designation I find myself in the same conundrum as Hamlet when he pondered the question of whether to live a life of action or a life of silent acceptance (or even end it all). What I mean is, do I maintain my CHRP designation and accept that it doesn't really represent a higher level of experience and commitment to the HR profession, OR do I take action, and make a statement by letting the damned thing lapse and spending the re-certification money on coffee, chocolate and other equally important things?

My question stems from observing people new to the field, and people who have just finished a 2 year HR diploma, prepare and study for the exams that, if passed, will earn them the CHRP designation. The same designation that many of my seasoned colleagues, and myself, can only maintain if every 3 years we fill in a ridiculous form to prove that we know what we're doing in our jobs every day! Give me a break!

Maybe I'm confused about what the CHRP designation is?

I was recently asked to complete a questionnaire by the association governing the CHRP designation in Alberta, to clarify what exactly someone holding a CHRP does. Now, being a committed HR professional, I decided to act on the request and complete the survey. By the second question I could feel my blood begin to boil and my frustrations begin to rise. Somehow, I was expected to check the most appropriate box that would accurately describe what a CHRP does every day and how important that work is in their day. What the hell? How can we expect to define a CHRP (positioned in the survey, as a person, rather than a designation) in such a simple manner? Shouldn't the CHRP be about experience, integrity, breadth and depth of knowledge, and not about defining how important the tasks associated with organization development or recruitment are each day?

Needless to say, I stopped mid-way through the survey and sent an email to the association to let them know how absurd their questions were.

Speaking of questions, I guess I've answered my own...the answer is "Not to CHRP".