第一胜任力导读
'这个部门所属雇员80%的时间都用在了日常性的行政管理事务上。该部门的几乎所有职能都可以让其他部门用更少的时间却更为熟练地去完成。更要命的是该部门的领导人无法描述出它们对公司的价值增值所作的具体贡献是什么，而只能用一些流动的、无法量化的和苍白无力的语言来为自己辩解——然而，正如毒蛇不会受到自己的毒液感染一样，这个部门竟然还常常向其他部门提建议，告诉它们如何精简那些不会给公司带来价值增值的工作。'
'不仅如此，从招聘广告上看，在这个部门中工作的专业人员的平均薪资水平去年竟然上升了30%。我所描述的当然就是你们公司的人力资源管理部门，因此我想给你的一个小小建议是：为什么不把你的人力资源管理部门炸掉算了？'
虽然，托马斯·斯图沃特这段话描述的并非近几年的状况，我们今天看来有很多人会觉得观点过于偏激，但我今天要表达的主旨却是与他一致的，那就是“炸掉你的人力资源部”。
如果你的人力资源部符合下列特征，那么不要犹豫，炸掉它吧。
1、 缺乏专业精神
2、 缺乏首创精神
3、 沉迷于虚拟社团，而现实的内部沟通一塌糊涂
4、 不适宜的职业动机
5、 缺乏商业视野，对于组织战略，要么一窍不通，要么沉迷于此
6、 官僚主义
当然，对于少数合格甚至堪称优秀的HR（大家对人力资源部成员的习惯性简称）们，我们以下的描述是不公平的，我们无意指责所有的HR。我们只想从上述几个鲜有人提出的问题出发，给大多数“暖洋洋、昏昏欲睡的”HR们提个醒，给那些对HR又爱又恨的老板和CEO们提个醒。
在今天，恐怕没有哪个人力资源经理和商业组织的投资者愿意承认人力资源管理是不需要专业技术的低层次工作。可是，我们随便打开一个人才招聘网站来看一看，你就知道负责招聘的HR是多么的随意和不严谨，残缺不全的信息结构，蹩脚的职责描述和资格说明，甚至有的公司HR完全照抄同业公司的招聘说明——最简单的事情却做的最糟糕，或许他们并不缺乏专业能力，但他们一定是缺乏专业精神！
你若曾经通过公开招聘的方式获得过几份工作，那么请回想一下，他们是如何对待求职者的？从电话通知和现场接待的礼仪，到面试考察的技术水平，有几个HR向你展示了他的人本精神和职业水准，给你留下了良好的专业印象？事实上，不多。
HR在自己建立的社团里一面抱怨业务部门对他们不够尊重，不够合作；同时又从未间断在求职者面前展现出他们的低劣的面试技术和人际行为。如果HR今天的行为已经让求职者对高高在上的您望而生厌了，将来他们会如何回馈您呢？
求职者一旦有幸被录用了，那么请做好自生自灭的心理准备吧。大多数HR将为你安排说教式的入职培训，或者干脆连入职培训也没有。缺乏首创精神和创新能力的HR正沉迷于BBS和群聊天室，他们在互联网上疯狂搜寻，用工作时间“泡网”得到的经验值和虚拟货币换取互联网上的各种管理制度和PPT培训课件，他们将套用这些来自知名公司的资源，以节省培训支出为借口而自封“讲师”，为你套上一件不合身的“新时装”。遇上这样的HR，如果你和你的主管、同事发生了矛盾，最好你自己用刚刚从他们那里听来的沟通技巧自行处理吧。
他们正和成百上千个一样的他们在虚拟的社群里有一句没一句地聊着天，或许周末他们还要去参加聚会和交友活动——他们更热衷于这样的外部交往，而内部沟通一塌糊涂。他们总希望业务部门执行他们翻版制作的人力资源政策，但却无法说服那些经理们；甚至当冲突发生的时候，有的HR表现出强烈的自卑倾向，消极回避含糊其辞拖而不决，而这种看似微不足道的事情却总产生微妙的影响。
HR常常给员工讲授时间管理的技巧课程，而恰恰他们自己就是公司里最不擅长时间管理的人。他们似乎拥有最多的电子邮件，每天长时间坐在电脑前频繁地阅读和收发着各种各样的E-mail，有趣而无聊的FLASH动画、PPT、趣味测试和笑话等。每天被即时通讯工具QQ和MSN上的联系人打扰最多的，也是HR。久而久之，他们将在组织中造就新的官僚主义，偏离业务目标的需要越来越远。
大多数的HR应该承认，他们可用的学习机会最多，他们可用的学习时间最长，他们是电脑拥有率最高的群体，他们的信息触角最广，但他们却恰恰是最保守、最没有首创精神的群体，他们习惯了将别人的时装拿来就往头上套，他们是顶级的“拿来主义”。
HR缺乏专业精神，还体现在他们选择这项职业的动机上：在成为一名HR之前，在他们的潜意识里，认为这是一个门槛很低的工作。成为HR之后，尽管他们绝不认为这是低技术要求的工作，但事实上最初的那种动机一直影响着他们的工作和学习。因此，在这样一个基数庞大的职业种类中，具有专业水准的合格的HR并没有占大多数也就成为一种必然了。
不论是在西方发达国家，还是在管理发展相对落后的中国，HR们都希望自己在组织中拥有更大的影响力和更光明的职业前景。遗憾的是，他们普遍缺乏商业头脑，他们的确完成了大量的事务性工作，但他们自己也无法说清楚自己工作的结果——创造的价值是什么，如此，“做老板的战略伙伴”只能是痴心妄想。对组织战略和业务运营一窍不通，这是为数不少的人事和人力资源管理者所处的一个极端。
而另一种极端，就是沉迷于战略目标的描述和讨论中——笔者就接触过几名这样的HR，他们与投资者一样，属于理想主义者，集体欠缺实际行动力，基础工作被他们忽略而漏洞百出，常常因此而陷入被动。
急功近利的、缺乏首创精神和创新能力的HR最急于将自己从网上下载来的知名企业绩效管理制度派上用场，证明自己的价值。事实上老板们也常常给HR下达这样错误的指令——在认知不足、基础工作不扎实的情况下，匆匆拉开“绩效考评”的大幕。
最终不管是由于老板的参与度不够、还是HR自身的能力不足，不管是民营企业也好，国有企业也好，半真半假的外资企业也好，总之大部分都沦为一场“show”，一场消耗战，一通马后炮。“导演”可能在新的一年里投奔到一家新的公司，拿着更高的薪水，为了尽快出业绩，他们将继续重复过去的失败经历——就像上了瘾一样。于是，有业务部门的人在网上怒吼了：“让绩效考评去死！”其潜台词也不言而喻。
但是，不论你的HR是否合格，老板或CEO将全部责任推给HR也是不公平的。面临重大的人事决策而老板与HR有分歧的时候，双方力量悬殊的影响力博弈就产生了，因此实质上老板或CEO才是第一人力资源经理，必须带头学习人力资源管理，建立使直线经理都能尽到人力资源管理责任的机制，并为他们提供培训课程。
业务部门经理们不必像HR那样要求掌握全面的人力资源管理知识和技能，但是有一样技能是必须不断去学习和发展的，那就是学会如何与员工作良好的沟通——尽管学习过沟通技能课程的经理很多，但这却是一项被忽略的人力资源管理技能，组织中越来越多的工作需要借助良好的沟通才能完成。而彻底改善沟通技能的前提，就是帮助经理们发现自己的优势和风格。
被关注最多的招聘、培训、考核、薪酬都是人力资源管理实务的重要环节，但并非人力资源管理的全部，甚至有的时候并非重要的工作（针对企业发展的阶段、规模和具体情境而言）。人力资源管理其实是边界很模糊的工作领域，比如人力资源部对公司的培训程序负责，对整个公司的培训预算负责，对整体的人力资源开发结果负责；而直线经理也需要对自己部门的人力资源开发负责，要用好自己部门的预算，确保团队得到适宜的教育培训。人力资源部有责任为新员工提供一份培训“套餐”；同时该套餐也需要其他部门的经理来“掌勺”，例如承担某个课程的讲解，或者为新员工指定一名资深员工为见习导师等。
我们必须强调，决策者和业务部门经理将人力资源管理的责任推给人力资源部是极端的错误行为。让人力资源经理做管理变革失败的冤大头，直线经理在一旁抱着双臂冷眼旁观、幸灾乐祸，这都是很可悲很可笑的事情。
只要是承担管理责任的人，只要是享受管理人员待遇的人，都应该接受专门的训练，掌握相应的技能，承担相应的责任。只有这样，组织才有条件构建起支撑业务战略发展的人力资源战略，人力资源管理政策及实务才能保持一致性（组织对这种一致性的需要也常常被忽略）。
附本文英文原版
TAKING ON THE LAST BUREAUCRACY PEOPLE NEED PEOPLE--BUT DOTHEY NEED PERSONNEL? IT'S TIME FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENTS TO PUT UP ORSHUT UP
By THOMAS A. STEWARTREPORTER ASSOCIATE WILTON WOODS
January 15, 1996
(FORTUNE Magazine) – Nestling warm and sleepyin your company, like the asp in Cleopatra's bosom, is a department whoseemployees spend 80% of their time on routine administrative tasks. Nearly everyfunction of this department can be performed more expertly for less by others.Chances are its leaders are unable to describe their contribution to valueadded except in trendy, unquantifiable, and wannabe terms--yet, like a serpentunaffected by its own venom, the department frequently dispenses to othersadvice on how to eliminate work that does not add value. It is also anorganization where the average advertised salary for professional staffersincreased 30% last year.
I am describing, of course, your humanresources department, and have a modest proposal: Why not blow the sucker up?
I don't mean improve HR. Improvement's forwimps. I mean abolish it. Deep-six it. Rub it out; eliminate, toss, obliterate,nuke it; give it the old heave-ho, force it to walk the plank, turn it intoroad kill.
Why not?
Consider what HR does and whether it shoulddo it. Start with payroll, since that's a subject dear to the hearts of HR'sclientele. Outside providers now cut an estimated 25% of all paychecks issuedin the United States. Their business boometh. The employers' services divisionof Automatic Data Processing of Roseland, New Jersey, the biggest business inthe field, grew 13% in 1995 and has been growing at double-digit rates for years.The reason, says Fred Anderson, ADP's chief financial officer: 'Ascompanies move off mainframes, they are taking a look at what applications arestrategic to them. When they decide that payroll and human resources functionsare not strategic, they outsource them.' Back in the office, HR'scontribution to payroll administration comes down to keeping enough forms onhand for new hires to fill in and holding checks for people who were out oftown on payday and haven't yet signed up for direct deposit.
The same thing is happening with benefitsadministration. Johnson & Johnson is just one company that has turnedentirely to outside vendors to run retirement, health, and other plans. In a1995 survey of 314 large American companies, the Conference Board found that26% had outsourced benefits administration, but that overall number hides howmany farm out at least part of the job. As defined-contribution pensions like401(k)s replace defined-benefit plans, for example, companies are more thantwice as likely to turn to outsourcing, according to another Conference Boardsurvey--fully 87% outsource record keeping and 59%, administration and service.Got a question about your 401(k)? Don't call us: Call Fidelity's 800 number.The good news is that you can call at night and reach someone who can actuallyhelp you rather than simply take notes (inaccurately) and get back to you(belatedly).
In an outstanding study of the changing roleof human resources departments, the Corporate Leadership Council, a Washington,D.C., group that conducts research for 500 member companies, concluded thatfour big dollops of HR work have 'significant potential to outsourcefully': benefits design and administration; information systems and recordkeeping; employee services such as retirement counseling, outplacement, andrelocation; and health and safety (workers' compensation, wellness programs,drug testing, and OSHA compliance). None, the Corporate Leadership Councilnoted, have much potential to produce competitive advantage for a company thatdoes them especially well in-house; all offer economies of scale to outsidesuppliers; and for several, outsourcing reduces risk by offloading exposure toliability or regulatory claims.
To their credit, HR departments have seizedthe opportunity to outsource. Under pressure to cut costs, they have jettisonedadministrative bureaucracies like drug dealers tossing hemp into the sea when aCoast Guard cutter heaves into view. The ten biggest employee benefitsconsulting-and-outsourcing firms earned over $3 billion in revenue in 1994,242% more than they did ten years before.
But why stop there? A slew of othertraditional HR functions can also be outsourced or devolved from HR to theline. Take recruiting. Everywhere I've worked where I had to hire people, therule of thumb among managers was to involve HR as little as possible in theprocess. When HR professionals are themselves looking for work, two-thirds ofthe time they find it by networking or using search firms (a form ofoutsourcing), according to a survey of the HR job market by Manchester PartnersInternational, a Philadelphia-based coalition of outplacement andexecutive-coaching consultants. Sure, HR performs a useful role maintainingjob-posting lists, promoting diversity, and monitoring compliance withequal-opportunity laws, but just because the priest has to post the bannsdoesn't mean he should pick your spouse.
Designing and running compensation and rewardsystems is another candidate for the combination of outsourcing and devolution--ironically,especially when state-of-the-art reward mechanisms are of paramount importanceto competing. There may be a few companies with the scope and resources toconceive of innovative compensation plans, study them (necessarily by trial anderror), find and extirpate contradictions (for example, teaching people how towork in cross-functional teams while functional bosses control all rewards),and reinvent them for yet another test. Still fewer might be able to do thatquickly without confusing people and without turning on the organization'simmune system. Says James Kochanski, a principal at the Sibson & Co.consulting firm who has held HR positions at Northern Telecom, Quaker Oats, andKellogg: ' 'Not another new performance appraisal!' is a common lamentamong managers.' Much better to buy the state of the art from outside,customize it, and instill responsibility for running it as far down in theorganization as possible--where the work gets done for which you are paying andrewarding people. A Sibson survey of 50 manufacturers found that'mature' work teams--that is, teams that had shown a history ofmeeting goals and of continuous improvement--evaluated their own members'performance 38% of the time, with 18% (nearly one out of five) being responsiblefor disciplining them too.
As for training: Will every reader who hastaken a training course sponsored by his HR department and found it veryvaluable please raise his hand? There's lots of evidence that training is agood thing, but it points to the worth of just-in-time, close-to-the-worktraining--that is, training that should be lodged in line functions--notoff-the-shelf courses. One company studied by the Corporate Leadership Councilgave business-unit heads the power to sign off on HR's budget; of the $889,000HR proposed spending on training, the general managers okayed only$222,000--one dollar out of four. THAT SHOULDN'T be surprising. You don't haveto visit Washington to realize that bureaucracies self-inflate faster thanairbags and, unlike airbags, often for no good reason. Says Vikesh Mahendroo,executive vice president of William M. Mercer, the big HR consulting firm:'HR is often out of sync with the needs of the business. The importantquestion is, Will companies be able to bring the competence of the HR functionto the level the business requires?' Mahendroo thinks they can--if theydevote the same attention to reinventing human resources that they have tofinance, manufacturing, and other areas.
And if he's wrong, how far can a company go?Steel giant Nucor, with 6,000 employees, runs human resources with aheadquarters staff of just three people (one a secretary), one HR agent at eachplant (who reports to its general manager, not to corporate), and a set ofcompany HR principles. Says Chairman Kenneth Iverson (who answers his own phoneat the famously lean company): 'We pushed the responsibility down to thedivisional level. It works fine.'
Just as Georges Clemenceau said, 'War ismuch too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military,' so humancapital is too important to be left to Personnel. Says Matthew Olson, executivedirector of the corporate Leadership Council: 'This is a make-or-breakmoment for the function.' HR people say that their work, far from becomingless important as they turn administrivia over to others, has become of highstrategic importance. We are, they say, the trustees of the asset that mattersabove all others, proactive custodians of our core competence, holders of thekeys to competitive advantage in the new economy.
True, true, true--but are these the guys youwant to put in charge? Nothing is more dangerous than a group of people trainedin the art of monitoring compliance with rules, fluent in a language that doesnot include a word for 'customer,' and who have time on their handsand are looking for something to do. There's a reason that more and more new HRexecutives come to the post with backgrounds in line management or consultingrather than from HR's own ranks. Says Mahendroo: 'I've seen this much,much more in the last five years.' There are two messages here. One,Mahendroo notes, is that human-capital management has become important enoughthat it is 'an acceptable career path for an up-and-comer.' Thesecond is that many people doing the work now can't cut it in the HR of thefuture.
HUMAN RESOURCES has come to the proverbialfork in the road. One path leads to a highly automated employee-servicesoperation handling what used to be paperwork in a ragingly efficient way. Thisfunction becomes little more than a gateway to outside suppliers, impersonal inone sense but highly amenable to supporting personalized, cafeteria-styleservices. The other leads straight to the CEO's office. Says Sibson'sKochanski: 'I'm not clear whether the two functions have to be in the sameorganization. The high-tech part might be merged with other data centers, andthe strategy part might link up better with other strategy parts.'
Clearly, companies need a place to thinkabout the skills they need and will need, about executive development, about away to focus on human capital. This is precisely why they should ask thedo-or-die question of their human resources departments. The prospect ofhanging, as Dr. Johnson said, is a sure way of concentrating the mind.
Reporter Associate Wilton Woods
回复“Dave”，收看康志军老师的文章《【笑侃戴夫·尤里奇】如何在“炸掉你的人力资源部”争论中声名鹊起，执HR转型之牛耳》。
联系客服
