A year ago, in the Pakistan Chapter conference of Society of Human Resource Management USA at Karachi Marriott, I spoke on the Future of HR, in which I predicted that it’s over for HR Department.

The conference delegates, mostly Directors of HR in MNCs and large Pakistani firms, took an offence! They thought I was spreading a scare. I spoke on this topic at other places and in other cities too and that talk evolved. But HR colleagues’ skepticism didn’t diminish.

My line was: Technology and outsourcing will take most functions which are currently under HR. Some HR tasks will go to line functions. A very little will be left for the remaining HR before the HR as a function will disappear.

27 August 2014 update: CIPD, the Lord of HR in UK/Europe/GCC, alert for their November conference talk. See the headline! Was this headline possible only a year earlier? See also side bar: Dave Ulrich is worried! Dave is the godfather of HR!

cipd end of hr

The July-August 2014 issue of Harvard Business Review‘s has carried this blog post by a global authority, Ram Charan. His recipe is less radical than mine but aims at the same thing: It’s Time to Split HR.

The Ram Charan post is reproduced here:

It’s time to say good-bye to the Department of Human Resources. Well, not the useful tasks it performs. But the department per se must go.

I talk with CEOs across the globe who are disappointed in their HR people. They would like to be able to use their chief human resource officers (CHROs) the way they use their CFOs—as sounding boards and trusted partners—and rely on their skills in linking people and numbers to diagnose weaknesses and strengths in the organization, find the right fit between employees and jobs, and advise on the talent implications of the company’s strategy.

But it’s a rare CHRO who can serve in such an active role. Most of them are process-oriented generalists who have expertise in personnel benefits, compensation, and labor relations. They are focused on internal matters such as engagement, empowerment, and managing cultural issues. What they can’t do very well is relate HR to real-world business needs. They don’t know how key decisions are made, and they have great difficulty analyzing why people—or whole parts of the organization—aren’t meeting the business’s performance goals.

Among the few CHROs who do know, I almost always find a common distinguishing quality: They have worked in line operations—such as sales, services, or manufacturing—or in finance. The celebrated former CHRO of GE, Bill Conaty, was a plant manager before Jack Welch brought him into HR. Conaty weighed in on key promotions and succession planning, working hand in glove with Welch in a sweeping overhaul of the company.

Mary Anne Elliott, the CHRO of Marsh, had had several managerial roles outside HR. She is overhauling the HR pipeline to bring in other people with business experience. Santrupt Misra, who left Hindustan Unilever to join Aditya Birla Group in 1996, became a close partner of the chairman, Kumar Mangalam Birla, working on organization and restructuring and developing P&L managers. He runs a $2 billion business as well as heading HR at the $45 billion conglomerate.

Such people have inspired the solution I have in mind. It is radical, but it is grounded in practicality. My proposal is to eliminate the position of CHRO and split HR into two strands. One—we might call it HR-A (for administration)—would primarily manage compensation and benefits. It would report to the CFO, who would have to see compensation as a talent magnet, not just a major cost. The other, HR-LO (for leadership and organization), would focus on improving the people capabilities of the business and would report to the CEO.

HR-LO would be led by high potentials from operations or finance whose business expertise and people skills give them a strong chance of attaining the top two layers of the organization. Leading HR-LO would build their experience in judging and developing people, assessing the company’s inner workings, and linking its social system to its financial performance. They would also draw others from the business side into the HR-LO pipeline.

After a few years these high potentials would move to either horizontal or higher-level line management jobs. In either case they would continue to rise, so their time in HR-LO would be seen as a developmental step rather than a ticket-punching exercise.

This proposal is just a bare outline. I expect to see plenty of opposition to it. But the problem with HR is real. One way or another, it will have to gain the business acumen needed to help organizations perform at their best.

Ram Charan is a worldwide business adviser and speaker and the author of 15 books. His most recent is Global Tilt (Crown Business, 2013).

Source: HBR

Wali’s original SHRM talk on Future of HR. Later versions are available on request.

  • Naveen Moid

    I would actually agree. Thing is people working in line operations can undoubtedly add value to HR as has been proven above, however the unbiased approach an HR person brings may be lacking… in which case a mix of both line and HR would make a formidable combination.

  • Troy Norris

    hhmmm is it not within the best interest of Mr. Charan that such an article be noticed? Where is the empirical evidence suggesting otherwise? Rather than being an article based on fact I find it to be a sales pitch for his business.

  • Saad Abid

    hmm sound interesting .The problem is there , but we are at HR not capable (in true sense ) of judging /analyzing the HR elements in monetary or figure terms or not even correlate with business goals but i dont agree to transfer the role of HR (L/O) to some one who has marketing or operations skills what about human understanding /psychology /behavior of those who might be good at operations marketing or other areas even for HR do they have the abilities to judge these?

  • Muhammad Aadil Liaquat

    I have never ever believed HR to be a professional career. It’s just a burden on the organization I believe.

    • Wali Zahid

      Well said, Aadil

    • Muhammad Usman Ghani

      Yes it is.Maybe because it was never roomed as a subject or specialty too.
      Smart computing and automation is also a threat to conventional HR roles.

  • Rashed Butt

    I believe that every single manager is a HR manager, let’s see how much will it take to equip first line managers to learn and practice all HR processes at their own.

  • M. Salman Tariq

    I dis-agree with your statement that HR is burden on organization.later after you would say that every supports functions, ect, procurement, IT, accounts admin are burden on organization.When we install rebort instead of Humans then it could be burden. when you argue that every line manger is HR Manager. this is fine and well taken.A step forward, I like to say that every line manger can be good procurement manager, even IT manager, If he can install window in his personal Laptop. Why he cant in office….. HR Manager / People & Culture is important if an organization has value. People & Culture manager are owner of theses organization’s Values.

  • M. Raza

    In reponse to Mr. Aadil Liaquat, it’s viewed as a burden to organization primarily because the business culture in Pakistan has still not been able to differentiate between HRM and Administration. There is a massive difference between the two.

    The foundation of HRM in Pakistan must relate to the global definition. HR should be given a direction towards learning and development of Human capital and strategically linking the Human Capital Development goals to the organization’s strategic goals. The developmental targets must be quantified and must be integrated and not discriminated as per departmental or business units.

    For example, the employee’s annual performance must be translated into his contribution to annual revenue generated or “sales per employee”.

    I would like to raise a question to Mr Wali Zahid; do you recommend implementing the HR-LO as a separate function or to be incorporated within each business unit of the organization?

    The focus on operations and finance proves the highly skewed organizational structure and one that focuses more on organization’s financial performance and not creating a very clear link between employee’s performance and organization’s performance.