Time to revisit the Dave Ulrich model on Role of HR

The question of the role of HR has been thrown around for long and we have seen this function undergo existential dilemmas. Having spent time in a line function, you sometimes wonder why those functions don’t face these existential questions. For e.g.: What is the role of Sales function in the organization? Growth of most companies seem to be linked to the economy or the monsoons, but still as they directly impact the topline of any organization it is deemed to be adding value by design. However, in the case of HR, most of the impact created is depended on the line managers’ delivery. Hence the role of HR as facilitator adding value is under-rated and not visible.

Many experts have opined therefore of what is the role that HR needs to play. We have the famous HR Champions model of Dave Ulrich which defines the role along the axis of time span and elements in an organization. Of course, the role of administrative expert, strategic partner, change agent and employee champion have defined what HR needs to do for the last 2 decades.

As strategic partner, the role of working with line is paramount and hence the element of partnership is dependent on the value perceived to be added by the parties and this becomes a concern without clearly defined areas of contribution. A change agent role is played by the leaders and the role of HR inadvertently therefore became to be the mouth piece of the leader. There are roles played as administrative expert and employee champion, which are elements to be executed by HR and defining the process rather than outcomes has made this approach restrictive.

In the current nature of organisations, the roles of partnering, change agents etc. are a little passé as every part of the organization must partner, drive change and be administratively brilliant in what they do (especially with the technology enablement). This model therefore defined the set of expectations around the ‘how’ which made the role different from the expectation of contribution.  Hence, HR will need to define their role based on where the expertise lies and hence what HR can deliver to the organization. Let us therefore approach what HR delivers in conjunction with what HR is good at and to whom can the function add value.

At a very fundamental level, HR is about managing human resources (of course in a human way with human relationships etc.) for the organization. HR needs to lay down the frameworks in which people need to be managed in an organization.

Though different individuals enter organizations and groups, they behave in a similar manner due to the social conditioning that happens in those environments. Therefore, individuals come in, but become entrenched in the organizational way of working. Hence, we have 2 dimensions to the human aspect of the organization which thereby translates to 2 stakeholders. At one end, it is the individual with his own motivations and needs and at the other end we have the organization with its own cultures and strategies.

Hence the question for HR professionals is being able to impact people at an individual level and also affect the context in which they work at the organizational level?

I feel HR professionals are expected to be experts (or students) of behavior of people – in an individual context or in a group context or in an organization context. This in academia is covered under organsational behavior and are the intangibles in the organisation. The other element which I prefer to express as the nuts and bolts of work is the systems, processes, structures that are running any organization. This is referred to as organisation design and are the tangibles in the organisation.

In this intersection of what HR is good at and who are the key stakeholders, the areas of work for HR will emerge. These would translate into the areas of capability, culture, structure and work design. Each organization would set different agendas in these spaces depending on the life cycle and the business environment. 

The ‘HR Champions’ model is a lot about the how and not about the areas of impact. The above model brings out areas which the organisation demands and where HR’s expertise would be required. The role of HR will thereby be more aligned to organisational objectives. These are independent areas of expertise and being able to provide solutions towards these objectives would be the scope for HR to be valued. It is time the HR role is delinked from the line manager’s people management responsibilities. The above model will help in identifying the areas of impact of HR as an expert function.

How will this actually get implemented in the organisation?

The role shifts from process delivery to advisory services in the above model and hence ability to influence the business around these agendas is important. In this new outlook, the different levels in HR will have to perform differently around deciding agendas for the organization or businesses, designing the change management exercise and actually delivering on the same.  

Though the areas related to design of work - ‘work-design’ and ‘structures’ - are typically managed in the form of projects, there will be an ongoing need in different parts of the organization due to the changing external dimensions. As the work changes, the ‘capability’ and ‘culture’ elements which are more about the ways of working in the organization, will also need to be changed and would be driven through processes, conversations and building managerial skills. What will happen to the process of recruitment? This is like asking the sales team how would you do sales. The basic role of staffing and manning will need to be a normal process as is the current approach even with regard to other employee life cycle processes, payroll, policy administration etc.

An important aspect we need to reflect upon is whether our current education system is building HR professionals for the roles above and thereby creating HR professionals that organisations would value.

References:

1.     Ulrich, Dave; Human Resource Champions; 1996