How to save HR — Step 1 — Moving HR to "C" level

We set up the problem a few days ago: that HR is in danger of falling into irrelevance. (See How to save HR — Introduction.) The first step for saving HR is to raise its altitude — to "C" level.

Most companies have a handful of executives who report directly to the CEO: the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Marketing Officer, and the Chief Legal Officer (usually called the General Counsel). But rare is the company that has its head of human resources sitting in the"C suite."

This makes no sense. Every company depends upon having the best people — the best talent — it possibly can to succeed. Without top talent, who actually does the operations, finances, technology, marketing, or legal stuff? Why do most companies relegate the recruiting and managing of talent to an administrative position that usually reports to the CFO? Even the term "human resources" — itself a euphemism for the drab "personnel" — demeans the role and its importance. HR professionals often decry not having "a seat at the table," and for good reason. Most companies fail to recognize the strategic role that HR should play.

Top business guru Tom Peters beats the drum for elevating HR to its rightful place in his excellent book Re-imagine! Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age. (Click on its cover in the righthand column to learn more or buy it.) On page 256 of the hardcover edition, Tom advocates for changing the name of HR to "Talent Department." (Or even the slightly more exuberant "Seriously Cool People who Recruit & Develop Seriously Cool People.") He writes:

I have long believed that human resources people should sit at the Head Table. I'm a fan of HR. It is ... after all... an Age of Talent.

Problem: All too often "HR folks" are viewed (all too) correctly as "mechanics." Not as ... Master Architects ... who aim too ... Quarterback the Great War for Talent.

(Tom loves ellipses and capital letters nearly as much as he loves exclamation points.) Tom blames all this on a "failure of imagination." And he's right. You could do worse than to read Tom's chapter on Talent and implement half of his ideas for building HR into a strategic arm of the company, with a Chief Talent Officer reporting directly to the CEO. (Also, you should subscribe to his blog.)

Most companies say that their employees are their most important assets. If that's true, they should put the person in charge of developing them at the right altitude: at C level.

Comments

[James Mason]

I agree that HR is in serious danger of falling into irrelevancy, but I don't think that the problem is going to be solved by simply changing the name; I believe that changing the name IS part of the problem.

Calling a person a Talent Officer, or an HR Officer, or a Snacky Snack Purveyor, or a Tracky Trails Blazer, or anything else is NOT going to solve the problem, although I just now realised that I probably should have licensed some of these names.

The problem is that we spend WAY too much time on euphemisms, and not anywhere near enough time on letting Personnel people deal with Personnel issues (which was a good enough back in the day, by the way). It's like the whole argument about TeamMember, Employee, ShareHolder, Owner, all that junk.

Back in the Day, I was one of the first people to jump on the "don't call them Employees, call them Team Members!" bandwagon. In fact, I believe I was the very first person to violate the rules of English grammar and punctuation and call them TeamMembers.

I've since gotten over it. Turns out that it doesn't seem to matter a helluva lot what you call people if they don't HEAR, FEEL, AND BELIEVE the respect behind the words you use.

Ask yourself this little question. Could you walk up to your very bestest friend in all the world, and call him, her, or it some wildly inappropriate word, like, oh, "%&@head" or something even a bit friskier, without even the slightest fear that this person would take umbrage at the term? Of course you could.

Try that with someone you DON'T know, however, and I suspect you'd have a bit of trouble.

And it's quite independent of your RELATIONSHIP with the person, although that has a lot to do with it. It has almost everything to do with the fact that the WORD itself has a meaning independent of its prima facie meaning.

My point, and it was laying around here a second ago, is that this new, and I think amazingly stupid trend, isn't gonna solve a DAMN thing. I don't care if you call them Chief Talent Officers, or Head Muck Tucks, or HawaKuKu, or Bob's Your Uncle.

Tom is right, and Jay is right, and so is everybody else who talks about C-Level authority being the ONLY logical step, but where I differ, and where the research supports the conclusion I'm making is on the whole naming thing.

It might feel a whole bunch more Disney-esque to call someone a Chief Talent Officer, and, if you feel that getting jiggy with Mickey helps sell your firm to high-producing people, then it's all good, and whatever works for them, I suppose, works for you.

Me, I don't care what you call me. Give me a job that pays me what I'm worth. Give me respect. Give me opportunity. Treat me right. You wanna call me "personnel," call me personnel. HR, that's fine too. CTO, hey, great. Finder of Lost Souls, that's okay too.

But at the end of the day, I need to know one thing, and one thing only. I need to know that, as the person in charge of finding, hiring, and developing the people that work for your organization, you are gonna back me up. That is what I need to know. And I don't really care WHAT you call me, as long as I know you'll back me up.

Warm Regards,

James E. Mason
Managing Partner
MasonMcRight Legal Recruiting & Support Services

[JASON GREER]

Great post. I deal with HR folks all of the time and I am amazed at the level of competency that often goes unnoticed by the "C" suite. I believe HR is integral to the success of any company.

[HR Manager Position]

3 cheers to the post! HR is supposed to be the backbone of the company but still designation is unnoticed. The 'C' suite should focus on this part to better designate the HR.