Strengths and weaknesses of human resources management

Human Resource Department: Strengths and Weaknesses

Every company has a Human Resources (HR) department, but what does it really do? It can be hard to say, because quite a few companies do not talk openly about their HR departments. If someone has a company, though, an HR department is needed -- with small companies and sole-proprietorships being the exception to the rule in a lot of cases. The Human Resource department is the one that is designed to take care of hiring, firing and other employee functions. It also handles job applications and requests for vacation time, as well as other issues like discrimination complaints and problems. Most employees do not even give it a second thought unless they need something from it at that time. Then they run to the HR department for help.

Often, the Human Resource department is a behind-the-scenes area of the company, and that is true of any kind of business. Most people do not think of the HR department when they talk about the company that they are working for. Since that is generally the case, anyone who works in HR goes overlooked a lot of the time. This can make it difficult to coordinate anything with that department and other departments around the company. Many other departments and the people who work in them do not realize the importance of what the HR people do and how much it can affect their lives at work if things in the HR department do not run properly. HR people are some of the most important players in any company setting. They keep all kinds of things moving smoothly, but they rarely get credit for the actions they take to make the lives of the employees better.

Going Global -- Changing HR Functions

Now that companies are going global and there are such important advances in technology and other kinds of areas, the face of Human Resources is changing. There is a lot more work to do in today's business world, and so do the people in the HR department are facing increasing pressure to continue to perform above and beyond expectations. Advances in technology have worked to make things easier, but at the same time they have also made things much more complex and also prone to errors that are not always that easily caught and clarified or corrected (Frederickson and Walling, 1999).

Human Resource personnel find that they have to work harder in order to keep up with the changing times. They affect so many people in the company and need to be paying close attention on a daily basis in order to make sure they are keeping up with laws, regulations, and desires of those who lead the company. Since the Human Resource department generally makes or, at the very least enforces, the rules, it needs to be sure the rules that it is following are the most current, and that the local, state, and federal laws are being followed in the proper way each and every time.

In addition to all the issues and duties that still belong to the HR department, the business environment is becoming much more global. This is raising new and larger concerns as well as new ideas for those people who work in human resources, and almost all companies are affected by this. That means much more work and coordination required in the HR department as well as other departments around the company -- and also around the world. Because many companies are linked up through the Internet, there is a lot more for an HR person to do in today's company than there was even just a few short years ago.

Dealing with cultures, ideas, ethnicities, religions, and other personal issues can be very problematic, and a lot of HR personnel do not have a very clear understanding of the issues which surround these types of concerns. In other words, an employee could easily be offended by something that took place in the Human Resources department, and the people who work in that department would not realize what they had said or done to offend that person. It is very hard to work together well when these types of things are taking place. Cultural competence and cultural tolerance are both important and significant issues for any person who is going to continue to work in human resources in today's society.

What types of people work in the HR department and what opinions they hold about global issues and tolerance will affect the way they react to issues in the company, and this will, in turn, affect the employees. In a less direct way, whoever works in the HR department will also affect the employer, as some of the decisions made by human resources can affect the people who work at the company as employees. This could, in turn, affect that plans that are made by employers. Allowing the Human Resource department to have too much power is a problem, but yet the department must be able to hold quite a lot of power if it is to be entrusted with the enforcement of rules that everyone in the company has to abide by. This is becoming a more important issue as globalization continues, and there seems to be no end in sight (Frederickson and Walling, 1999).

In the face of recent scandals and problems with some large U.S. companies, Human Resource management has been required to make some changes. It was brought to light that many companies had serious problems of an ethical nature, and the companies that escaped these problems were fortunate -- or perhaps just better prepared and/or more ethical. Human Resource personnel are being forced to navigate areas that have become increasingly political, too, and that can make things confusing and difficult. They also have to decide what kind of ethical philosophy they are going to employ. The entire company should have a code of conduct and a code of ethics that both must be followed by all employees. Because of that, the departments work together much more easily than they otherwise would. This is important, because it ensures there will not be nearly as much infighting and other problems when rules are either changed or implemented.

HR and Planning for the Future

The direction the Human Resource department takes on all kinds of matters affects employees and employers in a lot of different ways. Whether people are comfortable when they come to HR and whether they feel they can speak out regarding any problems they see in the company will generally be affected by the kind of impression they have of the Human Resource personnel and the department as a whole (Gennard & Judge, 2005). This can be very difficult when there is a global component to the equation, because there are so many cultural and ethnic differences among those people who work in HR and the employees in the rest of the company. These differences make the Human Resources department seem like a very unapproachable place to a lot of employees, but that opinion can also be changed with some work and a little bit of understanding.

Human Resource departments in various areas of the world report that employee productivity has been on the rise, and that long-term demographics show that the mix of employees in companies today, along with the needs of those employees, will change in the future (Chuvala, 2002). This is something that most people who work in HR, especially in big companies, are well aware of where the future is concerned. Because of that information, Human Resource departments have to begin looking at things that should be done in order to ensure they are ready for the changing future, no matter what it has to offer to them.

The new loyalty to the company that a lot of employees are showing today, and the new work ethics that they are displaying, are great for companies. Unfortunately, most of what is being seen in those two areas is not being done from a sense of ethical duty or moral obligation to the employer (Chuvala, 2002). These things are being done because people really need to keep their jobs, so they are doing what they have to in an effort to ensure that they can.

Anyone who addresses this issue knows that the HR department is very valuable in any type of organization, and that it has a lot to offer. They also realize that HR often gets overlooked as having any real importance and/or it is seen as being intimidating, so most people ignore it or try to avoid spending any time with the people who belong to it. With that in mind, it can be difficult for everyone to work together properly. Some companies are doing very well with their codes of ethics and conduct, but there are still a lot of places where there are gaps in the 'rules' as to how people and departments are really supposed to work together. Things run relatively smoothly overall, but they could be vastly improved if there were more communication channels and if more people in the company felt like HR personnel were more approachable and easier to talk to.

The Creation of Strategic Plans

So many things go into the creation of a strategic plan, that it is often very difficult to know where to even begin to make one, but this is one of the most important and helpful areas for anyone who is in HR, especially in a large company where planning is needed. The difficulty of it, though, is one reason why so many businesses do not have their own strategic plan. Some think they do not need one, especially if the business they are running is relatively small. Others find that the task is too daunting, and because they cannot see a good starting point, they assume the task is too hard and that it will take too long, so they find reasons to rationalize why they do not need to have a plan, after all (Bechtell, 1995).

However, every good Human Resource department needs a strategic plan for the business overall. This department often deals with what the best fit for the company would be, and it has to deal with that in the context of best practices for the company and the industry. Balancing these things can be very delicate, but it has to be done in order to be successful. A strategic plan is often used to do this kind of thing, which is why HR is so involved with the strategy and planning of a company, whether it is large or small or in-between.

Too often, company HR departments make excuses for themselves and for the others in the company, and they find reasons not to create a strategic plan. They keep putting it off until it is basically forgotten about. Companies that do this are not doing any favors for their employees or for the communities they live and work in (Bechtell, 1995). They do not realize the importance of their strategic planning, and because of that they also do not see how much benefit that planning can give to the surrounding community that the company is a part of. There are definite differences between those companies that have a strategic plan and those companies that do not. It is one of the most important documents an HR department can ever create, and those people who realize its significance early on in the careers they create for themselves will be much better off than those who work for years and years before they see any advantages to strategic planning (Bechtell, 1995).

An HR department with a strategic plan has many goals and values, along with a clear direction to take for the future (Bechtell, 1995). Everything about that business is spelled out carefully, and it is designed to work with the least amount of trouble and the lowest number of problems. Because of this, businesses that have strategic plans in place have fewer employee problems and fewer difficulties with the surrounding community than those that do not have this kind of plan in place (Bechtell, 1995).

Also, businesses that have strategic plans have fewer conflicts internally, because all of the ways individuals are supposed to act, and what they are supposed to do, have already been clearly spelled out for them. As long as they know and follow the rules, there are few issues that have to be addressed. This is also very true in times of any kind of business crisis, since contingency plans within a strategic plan are designed to help a business get through whatever kind of problem it might be facing, which could include everything from the threat of takeover to a natural disaster (Bechtell, 1995).

Naturally, a smaller business will probably have a smaller strategic plan than a larger business. There are fewer things to worry about in a business that's much smaller, at least from the standpoint of the most important issues, which are people, profits, and possessions (Bechtell, 1995). That does not always make the running of the smaller business on a day-to-day level any easier than the running of the large one, but it does help with the fact there are fewer and smaller categories to deal with when a strategic plan for HR is created. Whether the business is small or large, though, creating a strategic plan and knowing what should be in it can put a business quite a bit ahead of its rivals who have not bothered to take the time to create strategic plans for their businesses.

Figuring out where to start with a strategic plan can be difficult, but there are always ways to pick a place and get moving. One of the first things that has to be done when creating a strategic plan is to determine who will be doing the work (Bechtell, 1995). This is often done through the decision of the owner or manager, since he or she is generally the one who makes the decision that a strategic plan needs to be created for the business. Once this decision has been made, the manager can then decide how the plan should be created, and by which people within the company. Often, the creation of a plan falls to the HR department because they have the largest body of knowledge as to how the company actually works and what regulations and rules must be followed.

One of the best ways to decide who will work on the project, though, is by committee. While it is definitely true that the manager could do all the work himself and just present the plans to his employees, it is often more democratic and also more acceptable if decisions regarding what to put in the plan are done by a larger group of people (Bechtell, 1995). Often, this group includes the manager, but using a group approach helps to indicate to the employees that the input and ideas they have are valid and important (Bechtell, 1995).

Individuals from the HR department are generally the majority of those people included in strategic planning, but adding other employees can give insight that would not have otherwise been available. The reason behind this is that HR is such a big part of the business environment, and that department works with all the employees, helping to bridge the gap between them and the employers, but other employees can have opinions and ideas about issues that HR might not see or be familiar with. Focusing on strategic issues, and knowing what strategy to employ at a certain time, is vital for individuals in the HR department in order to keep their department and the rest of the company working properly.

Another important reason for using a group approach to the idea of strategic planning is that people come from all kinds of life experiences and backgrounds, and the diversity that is seen in a group of people often works to generate more ideas and opinions that are related to personal experience and that can be helpful in the creation of a strategic plan to keep the HR department moving forward (D'Aveni, 1994). One individual would not necessarily be able to easily acquire as much experience as could be found in a large group, and therefore the group generates a lot more ideas about what should go in the strategic plan (D'Aveni, 1994). Too large of a group, though, could create just as many problems as too small of a group, because dissent would be a bigger concern.

There are no specific regulations as to how many people should be included within an HR group when creating a strategic plan for a business. This often depends on how big the organization or company itself actually is. A business that has just 50 employees may have a five-person group, where a bigger company with 500 employees may have a group of 20 or more people, and they may come from HR and other areas of the company. There are no absolutes, though, and it is generally left to the discretion and opinion of a manager or owner as to how large a group is utilized for the task of the creation of a strategic plan for the HR department and the rest of the company (D'Aveni, 1994).

Once a group is assembled, they do not have to be the only people that ideas can come from. All of the employees can be encouraged to voice their ideas in various ways, and this can also help to get them more involved with the people in the HR department, fostering a more accepting attitude within the company (D'Aveni, 1994). For example, company meetings could be held where any employees wishing to contribute could come and share ideas, opinions, and grievances with management and the group who is working on the strategic plan in order to feel as though they have been heard. Employees should feel safe and comfortable doing this with the personnel from the HR department, because that department is designed to protect the employees' interests and uphold all of the rules and regulations. The HR department is the place employees can go if they are being harassed, if they have any kind of grievance, or if there are other issues they need to have addressed with the company.

Some businesses also employ outside consultants for the specific purpose of working with HR in order to create a good strategic plan (D'Aveni, 1994). While these people have a lot of training in what they do, they do not always know all that they need to know about the business in the same way that the employees do. Therefore, it seems logical that, if a consultant is going to be used by a company, the consultant should either become part of the group as it works through the plan, or he should look at the plan when it is finished in order to see if there are obvious errors or omissions (D'Aveni, 1994).

Letting a consultant tackle a strategic plan by himself or herself would be back to the idea of putting only one person in charge of coming up with all ideas. That usually does not work very well, due to a lack of diversity in the life experiences and work experiences. Letting employees in on a group can also be very valuable, as can holding more meetings where the expression of ideas is encouraged and appreciated. Not all the employees would be comfortable speaking out, though, and that is something that a company needs to be aware of when it considers ways to get people to participate in strategic planning.

If this is not a feasible way to do things, there are easier ways to allow the employees to make suggestions, like a suggestion box where ideas can be deposited anonymously, or an email address that is only for ideas and input toward a strategic plan (Donaldson, 1995). Employees will often be more receptive to a strategic plan overall if they feel some of what they have said has been embodied in it. If employees are not asked about their opinions, many will feel the strategic plan is only another group of rules and regulations thrust on them by management. This can lead to a lot of unhappy employees and dissension among the ranks, which can only do harm to the business, making it even more difficult for the HR department to do its job effectively and efficiently (Donaldson, 1995).

Many employers think that, once they have collected and agreed upon all the ideas and plans which will be used in the final document, all they need to do is put a document together. This is broadly true, of course, but there is a lot more to assembling a strategic plan than they may realize. They cannot just say "we will do y in situation z." Instead, they must look into codes, rules, laws, and other issues that belong to the community and the state, as well as any national or international laws or regulations that affect them (Campbell, Goold, & Alexander, 1995). A strategic plan would not be useful if it made statements which broke laws or failed to follow approved federal, state, or local guidelines (Bartlett, 1995).

Technological Advancements for HR -- Human Capital

As times have begun to change, so have many businesses. They have worked toward making strategic plans more realistic, and they have discovered the strategic plan of a particular business does not have to be the strategic plan of an entire industry (Campbell, Goold, & Alexander, 1995). This was a problem which was faced a lot when strategic planning was new, largely due to a cookie cutter effect that was created by the idea of strategic programming. Since this is no longer passed off as actual strategic planning, planners and those people in upper management can do a lot more with strategic plans that they were capable of years ago (Campbell, Goold, & Alexander, 1995).

Strategic planning has also gotten so technologically advanced that there is software which can be purchased for that purpose, and many HR departments utilize it. The software is not designed to create an actual strategic plan for an entire business, but it is designed to allow management and HR to view what could happen in the future and insert possible scenarios so they can do the best job of determining whether they will have difficulty if they accept a certain route, strategy, idea, or plan (Davis, 1999).

The software seems to do especially well within the business sector, and many managers and other corporate people want to find out what the future has to offer based on decisions they are making today (Davis, 1999). By using the software, managers can see results for several scenarios, see what other variables affecting these results could be, and come to a much better understanding of how a particular decision they are thinking of making could really affect the company in the long run, because there could be variables and problems they never would have thought of on their own (Campbell, Goold, & Alexander, 1995).

Anyone who has been part of creating a strategic plan for a business knows there is no possible way to plan for every eventuality that could come about in the future (Shoemaker, 1995). Human beings can only do so much, and concerns they have not resolved can sometimes return to cause them problems later down the road. This is usually an unforeseen issue, and is not the result of sloppy, incomplete planning. It is due to the fact the future does not always occur the way one thinks it will, and when one makes a decision based on the belief of the future, there is always a chance it will hold something else entirely (Shoemaker, 1995).