In the The Harvard Business Review (a very worthwhile subscription, by the way), the Editor-in-Chief Adi Ignatius wrote, “HR is always a popular target, as it handles many of the least-loved aspects of corporate life. Everyone seems to think that he or she knows a better way”. People in HR are incredibly busy mopping up other people’s messes, whilst simultaneously being expected to do as everyone else believes is appropriate!
In the midst of all of this here am I proposing we take on more; or am I?
Unfortunately, for a number of reasons HR isn’t the most respected of disciplines in some organisations:
- Personnel, HR’s forerunner, was perceived to be more of an administrative function
- We have a history of denying management their coarser instincts, such as their desire to hire and fire based on gut feeling, to thwart poorer elements from risk taking on Health and Safety issues and to expect people to be rewarded fairly
- HR people have accepted a lesser role, despite people delivering everything
Even one of my favourite business gurus, Patrick Lencioni, in one of his books describes HR as a lower function. The prevailing theme seems to be a company can do without HR but not finance, engineering, production or sales – which is probably true. So, we have to be more, offer more and impact more. Fundamentally, HR needs to be an executive function, credible for the insights and value.
Is it too presumptuous to state an organisation must have an ethical basis? Of course, it is the people in the business who need a set of principles upon which they make decisions. The senior staff need to role model them or else the very clear message to everyone is the words are no more than that. Few people in senior management roles who are immoral but there does seem to be a suspension of their morality on occasions when the short-term benefits for the business would be adversely impacted by following a moral path. This is the potency of amorality; people in the rest of their lives rationalising behaviour which is questionable.
Bill Clinton, talking about his “affair” with Monica Lewinsky said, “I think I did something for the worst possible reason – because I could, I think that is the most, just about the most indefensible reason that anybody could have for doing anything.”
Then there are the 4% of CEOs who are thought to be psychopaths, when only 1% of the general population are. This is the claim of Welsh journalist Jon Ronson in his book, The Psychopath Test. Given the definition of a psychopath is, “a person with a psychotic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behaviour, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity…”
For me the key word is relationships. All aspects of business are based on relationships and all relationships are based on trust. A lack of a moral base will breach trust very quickly. In the next blog I will discuss building trust and keeping it.
Leave a Reply