The real proof of pudding is in eating it. An erstwhile HR collegue challenged my definition of leadership by asking a simple question " Can you tell me if my position of VP-HR a leadership role or managerial role?". So I set about attempting to test my definition.
What 'should a VP HR do' in an organisation? Because he is not dealing with 'external customers' his external open system is defined by the 'business units' he is serving. So should we ask SBU heads 'what do they want from HR'? But this is like asking a question to a father 'what he wants from his child'. It is often a wish list which is devoid of any realistic understanding of the ground reality. So what can one do?
Perhaps, it is necessary to understand what 'businesses' is HR servicing. Only then, one can ask the next question, 'what one needs to do to hire/retain and develop the people required in that business unit'. When I did this quick analysis with my HR friend, we realised he is serving four different businesses whose skill-sets are entirely different. In other words he requires different HR policies for each of them, if he wants to service them meaningfully. We were both surprised that one HR policy was being used currently. We also realised that best answers of what should be done by HR, is best answered by experts in HR and other past VPs who have been in the same function earlier.
As we explored the question further, we discovered that this question of what should be done can be best answered by the internal stakeholders of HR who are currently serving these HR units. When we talked with them , we understood why business heads do not respect their judgement, why HR is still seen as a 'transactional provider', why HR is brought at the fag end of a conflict when the employee is just to leave. This made us realise that even if find 'what should be done' by HR, we still cannot 'execute it' because the organisation does not perceive HR to be an important function ( although all senior managers do not say it openly).
In other words, even before VP-HR can hope to do anything meaningful for the organisation, he cannot do so until the organisation system provides him enough 'power' to accomplish it. This meant that his first 'should-be' action must be 'gaining trust and credibility of the business units' before he can even meaningfully service those businesses. This is both an opportunity and constraint for him; opportunity- because it will give him more time to understand what should be done- and constraint - because he has to learn to be patient and wait for the right time to launch his plans.
As we explored this together, we realised that 'gaining credibility' is a far more meaningful objective for his system, than just rushing about, launching some new actions or doing something visible for the sake of it. Even this seemingly simple objective required a set of packaged cohesive initiatives to be implemented in next 3months. Contrast this with what a manager would have done.
A manager would be wanting to sit in the drivers seat and take charge from front. A leader however learns to wait for the right time and wait in the background till that time. A manager bangs his head against the wall and blames others for not responding to his initiative; while a leader by setting his expectation 'right' enables his team to 'synthesise' his team's energies and achieve 'traction' to set up the next move. A manager by taking wrong actions reduces his credibility ( making it difficult for himself for the next round), while the leader 'accumulates' small wins to generate 'credibility'. Although this is not a full fledged description of entire analysis, you can realise the difference between two roles starkly.
In other words, a position ( like VP-HR) offers both options: of practicing managerial and leadership roles. Which role one takes from the two is determined by the person's individual attitude and his/her skill set. Most of the individuals take the role of 'manager' by default, because they are ignorant of the other role. But, as i talked to my friend, we realised that this role is a 'culturally difficult choice' to take. Let us explore that difficulty in the next blog.
What 'should a VP HR do' in an organisation? Because he is not dealing with 'external customers' his external open system is defined by the 'business units' he is serving. So should we ask SBU heads 'what do they want from HR'? But this is like asking a question to a father 'what he wants from his child'. It is often a wish list which is devoid of any realistic understanding of the ground reality. So what can one do?
Perhaps, it is necessary to understand what 'businesses' is HR servicing. Only then, one can ask the next question, 'what one needs to do to hire/retain and develop the people required in that business unit'. When I did this quick analysis with my HR friend, we realised he is serving four different businesses whose skill-sets are entirely different. In other words he requires different HR policies for each of them, if he wants to service them meaningfully. We were both surprised that one HR policy was being used currently. We also realised that best answers of what should be done by HR, is best answered by experts in HR and other past VPs who have been in the same function earlier.
As we explored the question further, we discovered that this question of what should be done can be best answered by the internal stakeholders of HR who are currently serving these HR units. When we talked with them , we understood why business heads do not respect their judgement, why HR is still seen as a 'transactional provider', why HR is brought at the fag end of a conflict when the employee is just to leave. This made us realise that even if find 'what should be done' by HR, we still cannot 'execute it' because the organisation does not perceive HR to be an important function ( although all senior managers do not say it openly).
In other words, even before VP-HR can hope to do anything meaningful for the organisation, he cannot do so until the organisation system provides him enough 'power' to accomplish it. This meant that his first 'should-be' action must be 'gaining trust and credibility of the business units' before he can even meaningfully service those businesses. This is both an opportunity and constraint for him; opportunity- because it will give him more time to understand what should be done- and constraint - because he has to learn to be patient and wait for the right time to launch his plans.
As we explored this together, we realised that 'gaining credibility' is a far more meaningful objective for his system, than just rushing about, launching some new actions or doing something visible for the sake of it. Even this seemingly simple objective required a set of packaged cohesive initiatives to be implemented in next 3months. Contrast this with what a manager would have done.
A manager would be wanting to sit in the drivers seat and take charge from front. A leader however learns to wait for the right time and wait in the background till that time. A manager bangs his head against the wall and blames others for not responding to his initiative; while a leader by setting his expectation 'right' enables his team to 'synthesise' his team's energies and achieve 'traction' to set up the next move. A manager by taking wrong actions reduces his credibility ( making it difficult for himself for the next round), while the leader 'accumulates' small wins to generate 'credibility'. Although this is not a full fledged description of entire analysis, you can realise the difference between two roles starkly.
In other words, a position ( like VP-HR) offers both options: of practicing managerial and leadership roles. Which role one takes from the two is determined by the person's individual attitude and his/her skill set. Most of the individuals take the role of 'manager' by default, because they are ignorant of the other role. But, as i talked to my friend, we realised that this role is a 'culturally difficult choice' to take. Let us explore that difficulty in the next blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment