Human resources - what do they actually do?

Hands up all of those who have spent most of November writing staff appraisals knowing that you might as well be writing fiction? Yet one of the key buzzwords of HR is “feedback”. “We're always seeking feedback from staff.” No they're not. They're filing the reports to satisfy the quality provisions and if a problem should arise they can say, “yes, we've got that problem on file and it's being actioned”.

Here's a true story from a Queensland university. In one infamous case, a woman who only had four years experience as a middle manager in the state treasury found herself in the position of Executive Officer and HR Manager of a faculty controlling an operating budget of $80 million, 500 staff and 7,000 students.

She was known as “Dr No” because she blocked funding for new staff and resources. She was way out of her depth and lasted three years. Her background was in organisational behaviour yet her desk was covered with financial spreadsheets. Who hired her? No one knew.

The relevant question is that if HR executives are sitting with management contributing to debates about strategy and staffing, then one would expect them to have some pretty vocal opinions. For example, in the mining industry it may make good sense to have workers on AWA's, yet for some businesses (let’s call them “knowledge organisations”), it may make equal sense to retain people with specialist knowledge or leadership skills.

Yet the whole edifice of Australian HR Management has been mouse-like when it comes to the big questions of future directions for corporate Australia. That's because (a) they aren't trained in complex finance (b) have little idea of how to create actual change (rather than talking about it) and (c) will do nothing that affects their position within the organisation.

Ridiculous and pernicious decisions about OHS, staffing levels and overtime, to name just a few, could have been quashed by HR executives saying “that won't fly because of X, Y or Z. How about we try A, B and C?” Is it any wonder that staff won't report bullying to HR officials and instead turn to the unions or the courts? (More often the latter.)

As reported by Nick O'Malley in The Sydney Morning Herald (June 2006) it's no surprise to Keri Spooner, a senior lecturer in human resource management at the University of Technology, Sydney that HR is a sop to the bosses.

"The reality is that human resources management was an invention of the '70s and it was a deliberate strategy to get rid of trade unions," she said.

She said people were joining unions so they could find their workplace rights and for unions to advocate for them, but corporations turned around and said “Oh, they're so ugly and old fashioned and you're a nice clean white-collar worker, we can be nice to each other, you don't have to mix with those grubs. Come in and HR will look after you.”

She said: "It is self-evident in the terminology that human resources managers are operating from a management perspective, their primary concern is the well-being of the organisation, and the humans that work for them are expendable, just like any other resource."

One HR commentator, Wendy Attwater in her on-line article “The changing face of Human Resources”, (August 2004) said that HR staff at all levels are now much more involved in the “business” of the organisation and so human resources is seen as a key activity or a “strategic partner” in many organisations and that HR was now concentrating on “value-adding activities”.

Rubbish. They're unqualified timid field mouses.