Job Recruitment Website - Job seeking and recruitment - Fang Shengtao: Should the Human Resources Department be renamed? Never change the soup without changing the medicine.
Fang Shengtao: Should the Human Resources Department be renamed? Never change the soup without changing the medicine.
This article is about 8600 words, divided into four parts, reading needs 17-29 minutes.
Does the human resources department need to change its name? It is easy for onlookers who have no long-term practice and deep feelings about the function of human resources to say things like "tear it down" and "destroy it". They are "too big to watch the fun." The boss in power often only considers the company and ignores the needs of employees and human resources workers.
I think whether to change the name should be considered from the following three aspects:
Based on the above three considerations, my overall conclusion is: renaming is not unreasonable and worth discussing; In fact, many private enterprises in China have started such exploration and practice, and a wave of renaming is looming. If you want to change your name, I suggest changing it to "Organization Development and Employee Experience Department", "Organization Development Department" or "Organization Development and Human Resources Department". After renaming, the core of human resources work is to develop organizations, and the difficulty lies in establishing organizational systems.
Why is it worth trying to change its name? I have to start from the beginning.
My understanding of human resources function is in P&G (P&; G) lay a foundation during work. 1995 I joined Procter & Gamble as soon as I graduated from college and worked in human resources. At that time, even P&G, a fortune 100 company born in the United States, changed from HR to HR in just a few years. Specifically, China P&G changed from HR Development Department to HR Department in 1993. At this stage, what P&G should do and how to use human resources are also evolving. As a newcomer in the workplace, I am trying to explore the functional orientation of human resources.
A book that has a great influence on me is Human Resources Champion. This book was recommended to me at the end of 1996 by Mohit (Chinese name Nan Muhai), then director of human resources in P&G Greater China. Mr. Nan Muhai is a very capable and charming person. Ten years later, he became the global CHRO of Procter & Gamble. The four-quadrant model described by Professor ulrich in the book Human Resources Champion, that is, human resources personnel should become change agents//change promoters, strategic partners/strategic partners, administrative experts//administrative efficiency experts, employee champions//employee supporters, has a strong guiding significance for me who was young at that time and worked in a foreign company.
After I left Procter & Gamble, I went to study for an MBA for one year. After I came back in 2002, I began to consult many private enterprises about human resource management. There is still a big gap between the human resource management state of most private enterprises and the description of four-quadrant thinking. When using this four-quadrant framework to communicate what human resources should do, customers' feelings are more "unclear" and it is difficult to have a real dialogue. However, I tend to believe that the four-quadrant framework is universal. At that time, I had begun to feel vaguely that this thinking framework needed to be combined with "China's national conditions" at the application level. Of course, I am very wary of the words "China's national conditions". In most cases, there is nothing special about "China's national conditions". So, this idea just flashed by.
My practice in Longhu Group (a thorough private enterprise) is not only a period for me to further practice and verify this four-quadrant thinking framework, but also a period for me to initially form my own human resource management methodology. In the early days of working in Longhu (between 2004 and 2007), the work of "people" really accounted for the main part. After 2008, it was not "personnel" that gradually occupied the main energy. "Personnel" mainly refers to the establishment of competency standards for middle and high-level personnel, the reorganization of recruitment processes and channels, entry, development, teaching and training. The development of human resources team can also be regarded as such "personnel". Of course, the interview takes up the most time in "personnel".
By that time in 2009, the work in organization and culture has far exceeded the work in personnel. What are not typical "personnel"? Iteration of mission/vision/values, communication and "preaching", organizational setup of group headquarters, relationship setup between headquarters and branches, research and summary of organizational development law of grass-roots business units (for example, organizational development law of a regional company), participation in listing preparation, equity incentive plan, enrichment of board of directors, entry and exit of core executives, change of CEO, etc. Of course, there is still a lot of time spent in various meetings (office meetings, annual meetings, budget meetings, retreats, strategic meetings, etc.). Note here that many people think that the entry and exit of core executives and the change of CEO are all "personnel". No, whether a core executive can integrate and play in the company is only a small part of "personnel", and it is more a question of strategy, organization and culture.
By 2009, after almost 14 years of practical experience in human resources and working as a human resources supervisor in an independent company for about 4 years, I had a solid summary of the functional orientation of human resources: we managed the organization's ability and temperament to help companies win one by one. At this time, the word "organization" has appeared and occupied an important position.
What is the relationship between this orientation of human resources function and Professor ulrich's four-quadrant thinking framework? My experience at that time was that the four quadrants are very enlightening to the role sense of human resources personnel, but this thinking framework is more like the internal language of human resources professionals, more like the thinking framework of human resources experts educating human resources workers, rather than the communication language between human resources personnel and customers.
If I want to explain to founders, CEOs and other executives what human resources do, it is easy to confuse business executives with this four-quadrant framework. If I say, "We are strategic partners, change agents, administrative efficiency experts and employee supporters, then they will ask, what are you responsible for? If we continue to say that the four roles add up to one sentence, we are strategic business partners. They will ask: What exactly is your strategic business partner responsible for? Manage people? Our head.
In recent years, 10 and 1 1, I feel more and more that it is inaccurate and effective to use "human resource management" to describe my work and position and guide my team work. Even if some people say that I am a human resource person, I am a little vaguely unhappy. However, because my position at that time was "executive director and chief human resources officer", I attributed this unhappiness more to their failure to understand my role outside human resources in the organization than to the possible limitations of the word "human resources".
From May, 2065438 to May, 2002, I resigned from the board of directors of Longhu until May, 20 17, which was the stage when I constantly reflected on my past experience and tried to refine the methodology that could be popularized. During this period, I studied at Harvard Theological Seminary for two and a half years, majoring in "Religion, Ethics and Politics". After I came back, I spent a lot of time in the non-profit field, observing and studying people and organizations in the public welfare field. Since I gave a lecture at Lakeside University in September of 16, I have been in contact with enterprises for four years (from the second half of 12 to the second half of 16, I have hardly been in contact with enterprises), including many new economic enterprises and entrepreneurs born after 1980.
It is also in these two years that I once again saw the general state of human resources personnel and human resources functions in private enterprises. Although most people's theoretical understanding of human resource management is far from comparable when I consulted in 2002~2004, the human resource departments of most private enterprises are still "taken" as the "personnel administration department" or even the "procurement administration department", and the procurement points are headhunting service, training courses, annual meeting suppliers, salary reports, etc. If I can summarize the general situation of the human resources department of private enterprises in one sentence, that is: the reality of personnel administration in the name of human resources and the importance of avoiding organizational construction. The feeling of human resources personnel is "not to be hated by the boss, and to carry the pot back every day".
To tell the truth, I am still very "distressed" by this state of human resources functions, and I am also very "distressed" by these human resources colleagues. For those who actively choose the career of human resources, I believe that most of them will not be satisfied with this working state. For those who are endowed with this function by "impermanent fate", I estimate that it is difficult for most of them to have too much professional pride and want to jump out of the "fire pit" early. But for those who enter this profession for the purpose of "work-life balance", the psychological gap is not that big.
Of course, I also sympathize with those bosses. They really don't know what to do with this department called drumsticks. Many bosses have chosen to leave this matter to another executive, but out of sight, out of mind.
This situation makes me seriously reflect on the functional orientation of human resources in private enterprises in China again and begin to "question" the functional name of human resources. By 2065438+early February 2008, all these observations and thoughts were finally condensed into a 25000-word article "Organizational Entrepreneurship and Creation: Chief Operating Officer &; So, this article was published on the official account of WeChat, namely "Chief Organization Officer". In this article, my core point is: the core task of private enterprises in China is not human resources, but organization; Its nature of work is not management, but entrepreneurship and creation; Organization should be the central task of leaders and culture; The obstacle to the establishment of an organization lies in the lack of the function of the "chief organization officer" and the lack of the ability to establish an "organizational system".
Human resource management is a foreign word, and most of the well-known methods and concepts in China come from the United States. However, the challenges faced by human resources practitioners in China are fundamentally different from their counterparts in the United States. What is the fundamental difference? It is the social and legal environment in the United States that roughly defines the boundaries of "organization". American enterprises have much less difficulty in "how to organize" than private enterprises in China. More specifically, human rights and power checks and balances are not only guaranteed by law, but also become the collective subconscious. These legal and social environments have a fundamental impact on the organization of individual enterprises.
For example, you want me to work in 996? Sorry, I'm Jewish. Sunset from Friday to Saturday is our sabbath, so I can't work. You forced me to work? Or, you won't hire me for this? You have to think about it, you can't eat, but you have to fight for it. You know, if there is age discrimination in recruitment, you may be fined tens of millions. For another example, allowing citizens to hold guns will have a fundamental impact on how enterprises are organized. Imagine that if China laws allow citizens to hold guns, I estimate that the fate of many bosses and human resources directors will be worrying. Note: I'm just giving an example. I don't support holding a gun. Guns are not allowed in Singapore where Chinese society is developed.
On the other hand, private enterprises in China have a boss with unique values (or bosses with multiple values). The values of bosses are the "actual composition" of enterprises. Therefore, the primary challenge of human resources personnel is the constitution and legislation, limiting the power of bosses and leaders, delineating the right boundary between enterprises and employees, and establishing the same values in leaders. Those so-called human resources professional jobs are secondary challenges.
Another obvious factor that leads to the difference between Chinese and American human resources peers is that most private enterprises in China are in the founder era, while there are a large number of professional managers in the United States to manage enterprises. No matter how big the American multinational companies are, their human resources functions in China tend to be implemented and improved. However, private enterprises in China, no matter how small, all their human resources functions are the human resources management of the headquarters, a lot of planning, design and reform.
The difference caused by the combination of these two differences is not a fragment, but a fundamental difference. If human resources colleagues in the United States are more like professionals, it is an exaggeration to say that human resources personnel in private enterprises in China are a bit like "social entrepreneurs".
In this case, we can go back to the theme of this article: For private enterprises in China, should the name "Human Resources Department" be changed?
In my opinion, private enterprises in China need and are fully qualified to do some "creation" at this stage. The word "human resources" is far from an insurmountable tradition. In fact, many enterprises at home and abroad have begun such exploration. Google /Google calls people to operate; ; Airbnb /Airbnb is called employee experience; Many domestic companies are also exploring and have begun to refer to the organization department (mainly responsible for middle and high-level talents).
Some people will question that the key is what you do, not what the department is called. You're right, that's what I think. But after years of observation and thinking, I have a different understanding of this "name" problem, because "naming is strategy". Imagine if this department is called "Organization Development Department", is the information transmitted by this name very different from that transmitted by "Human Resources Department"? Customers' understanding, positioning and expectations of you will be very different. The implicit criteria for selecting the heads of such functional departments are also quite different.
For example, when many young human resources personnel are asked "Why do you want to be a human resource", the conventional answer is that I think I am good at dealing with people and have strong communication skills, so I chose human resources. I really don't appreciate this answer, because it seriously misunderstood the nature and challenges of human resources. If you ask "why do you want to do the work of organizational development", will TAs still answer like this?
The word "human resources" is too easy for people to read literature, which makes people feel that "human resources" is to do the work of "people". This is not only misleading to human resources practitioners, but also misleading to founders and CEOs. It is easy for senior leaders to position human resource management as a job of "selecting and retaining people". But even if a large group of talents are put together, it may be an inefficient organization. So, the founder and CEO, the head of human resources and the business director jointly murdered a more important job: "building an organization"?
Generally speaking, I think the human resources work of private enterprises in China is more To B work than To C work. "Human Resources Department" is too easily misled by to C, so it is worth a try to change its name.
No, human resources. What should it be called? What kind of name can better reflect the essence of human resources work in private enterprises in China? What kind of name will be more conducive to the communication between human resources personnel and customers? I have a few ideas that will attract more attention.
Someone will suggest calling the organization department. The advantage of "Organization Department" is that it is simple and lively, has the power of overcorrection, and has the characteristics of China. The downside is that the word has been clearly defined, with a sense of power and politics, and it is not easy to handle relations with other departments. In addition, the organization department has a strong sense of control from top to bottom, and it is not enough to consider from the perspective of employees. Also, will this name mislead many people with strong desire for power? However, it is a good idea if it matches the industry and company culture.
Call the cadre department? The advantage is a clear point of view. The problem is that the sense of power and politics is also very strong, and the pronunciation is not very smooth. Moreover, it has not changed the misleading that human resources only do "human" work. In addition, this name has a strong flavor of "cadres" and "workers". How to match the increasingly flat world will be a challenge, and how to connect with the world is also a challenge. Even, this "cadre department" has the feeling of "official department" of China feudal dynasty. In addition, the cadre department is only one of the original responsibilities of the human resources department. What about other responsibilities of the human resources department?
"Organization Development Department" would be another good candidate, but it is easily confused with od. Now many human resources departments of private enterprises will also set up OD centers, that is, organizational development centers. I think this structure is not good. In American enterprises, OD is more professional and technical. In China's private enterprises, this kind of professional and technical guidance gets twice the result with half the effort. The relationship must be reversed, organizational development should be a first-class function, and traditional human resources work should report to organizational development work.
Some people will think that calling the organization development department too impersonal and corporate. This kind of worry has some truth. Then you can consider calling it "Organizational Development and Employee Experience Department". This will be more balanced. The disadvantage is that the name is a bit long. Some people prefer to put "employee experience" before "organizational development" and call it "employee experience and organizational development department" I prefer to say "organizational development" first. Because there is no good organizational development, there will be no good employee experience.
How about calling it "Employee Experience Department"? I think we should be cautious. The advantage of "employee experience" is that it may be more suitable for the new generation of employees and a flatter world, and may be more suitable for some more "avant-garde" and "young" companies. But instead of giving me the responsibility and power to interfere with the development of the organization, you put me in charge of the employee experience. This is the fundamental reason why many human resources have become "back-pot men" at present. In the case that there are still many serious injuries in the organization, one-sided emphasis on employee experience can easily lead to the misunderstanding of "populism". Also, "employee experience" is a relatively new word, and it is easy for all parties to be confused about what it is.
Some companies even dare not put the word "employee experience" in it, because it means that the company "complains" the legitimacy of the company to employees. Changing "employee experience" to "employee support" will be relatively weak.
Another problem with the name "employee experience" is that it has clear boundaries. What about those ecological organizations? In an eco-type enterprise, external cooperation will be a key value point. If you focus too much on employees within the boundary, it will be a bit limited.
It will be a safe choice to call it "the Department of Organizational Development and Human Resources" or "the Department of Human Resources and Organizational Development". These two names will be more easily associated with the current situation of "human resources department" and easier for all parties to understand. Human resources personnel will feel that they have not been eliminated, but have been expanded. For all parties, the cost of change is relatively low. If the existing department of an enterprise is the personnel administration department, it can also be considered as the name "Organization and Personnel Department", which emphasizes the organization, but it is also easy to be associated with the organization department and personnel department. The problem with these three names * * * is that they may compromise too much on the status quo and lack the power of overcorrection, which may easily lead to a change of medicine.
Organization and talent development department, organization and culture department, organization and creation department, etc. , you can try it. But whatever the new name is, I hope the new name can have the word "organization". In my opinion, in China's private enterprises, what founders and CEOs need most is a business partner who can cooperate with them to establish an organization. Including the word "organization" can better reflect the essence of this business partner.
Personally, I prefer the name "Organizational Development and Employee Experience Department", but I can also accept "Organizational Development Department" and "Organizational Development and Human Resources Department". I can only do no objection to the name "Organization Department".
There is another thing worth discussing. It is obviously more appropriate for employees to experience things dominated by insiders. Is it possible for the function of organizational development to be exerted by external forces? In this way, the internal can still be called the human resources department. Many companies invite consulting companies or consultants to achieve this goal. If part-time senior consultants can work with the mentality of full-time employees, it is not impossible for the company to have such an open border. However, most domestic consulting companies and private enterprises can't do this. If it happens, it is also an example, and it is difficult to replicate it on a large scale in the short term.
If it is changed to "Organization Development and Employee Experience Department", I suggest that its function be defined as "managing the organization's ability, temperament and employee experience to help the company win step by step". This positioning is extended on the basis of my positioning of human resources in 2009 (we help the company win step by step by managing the ability and temperament of the organization): "Organization" is not just a public service product, its users are all members and stakeholders, so the "employee experience" is increased.
The primary value of this name is that it can easily answer the core questions of stakeholders in the organization (founder and CEO, executives, employees, etc.). ): What are you in charge of? We are responsible for organizational effectiveness (ability, temperament) and employee experience. Every executive can manage his employees well, but the whole company may still be an inefficient organization. Each part has its own temperament, but the whole company may be mutually offset temperament. Companies can be very competitive in economic indicators, but the experience of employees is very general, which is easy to happen. Generally speaking, the name "Organizational Development and Employee Experience Department" balances the demands of all parties and has an independent basis.
This orientation of the Department of Organizational Development and Employee Experience does not deny ulrich's four-quadrant model. Simply put, organizational development is strategic partner+change promoter; Employee experience is an administrative efficiency expert+employee supporter. This name change simply conveys the positioning, value and work content of human resources personnel. Many excellent companies and excellent human resources personnel actually do this. This is also important, because it means that names are based on practice rather than imagination, rather than passive water.
Some people may wonder why you always mention ulrich's four-quadrant model over and over again. Are you trapped in there and can't get out? That's not true. Everyone thinks they know this kind of thing, so it is easy to make a "subversive innovation" on a whim. In fact, when you feel that you are making subversive innovations in your organization, you are mostly repeating the mistakes made by your predecessors, or putting new wine in old bottles. We should be modest. From human resources department to organizational development and employee experience department, it is not subversive innovation, but continuous improvement. The essence of the four-quadrant model still has a strong guiding significance, and the human resources department of many companies is far from this description.
With the positioning of "organizational development and employee experience", there will be some updated demands on the ability, work content and working methods of human resources personnel. What kind of ability and mentality does it take to build an organization? I conclude that there are three major items: institutional capacity, the spirit of rule of law, and the art of change. These three abilities are all macro abilities, so we need to learn more macro disciplines, such as politics, sociology, religion, public management, systems engineering and so on. The original name of "human resources" is easier to guide human resources personnel to learn micro-disciplines such as psychology. Of course, under the new name, those micro-abilities are still needed.
More specifically, the system capability of the three capabilities, that is, establishing an organizational system, will be the core challenge. The work content of human resources personnel, especially senior human resources leaders, must be upgraded from "organ" level work such as recruitment, training, salary and welfare, HRBP to "system level" work. Regarding the concept of organizational system, please refer to the historical articles "Organizational Entrepreneurship and Creation-The Only Way to Billion Market Value" and "Nine Organizational Systems and Their Functions and Objectives Description" written by the Chief Organizational Officer of WeChat official account (the updated version will be released in June+10, 5438).
Under the requirements of new ability and mentality, many existing human resources personnel will be greatly impacted in the short term. However, the existing typical human resources skills are still very useful in the "employee experience" section. Therefore, there is still a period of time to learn to change ideas and improve their abilities. In the long run, this change will bring more value creation space for human resources personnel and make more human resources personnel occupy a place in the core decision-making level of the company. If this upgrade iteration cannot be realized, the human resources department will become a secondary function, a chicken rib function, and a gathering place for the elderly, the weak and the sick. This kind of thing has actually happened a lot.
Under this new orientation, the relationship between founders and CEOs and human resources personnel will also change. Organizational development is very interesting. Many founders and CEOs will not give up this "interesting good thing" easily. Under the new position, they must learn to share responsibility and power, cooperate with each other with the mentality of organizing partners, realize the function of "Chief Operating Officer", and organize entrepreneurship and creation. If the person in charge of the Department of Organizational Development and Employee Experience has done a good job and made great contributions, enterprises should also consider setting the post title of Chief Operating Officer. This COO is as important as another COO, and it is more difficult to cultivate. Such a position of chief operating officer will be an important link in the development of CEO: many executives who are very good at business may become super CEOs if they can experience it again in the position of CEO.
Under the orientation of "Organization Development and Employee Experience Department", what should be the two-level organization, how to divide the work and cooperate with business departments, and how to transform with six modules and three pillars are all issues worthy of our in-depth discussion. This article will not list them one by one.
Finally, I must emphasize once again that whether we change our name or not, the substance must be more important than the name. Even if we continue to use the name of "Human Resources Department" but do a lot of organizational development, it is far better than renaming it as "Organizational Development and Employee Experience Department" but not doing organizational development. Otherwise, it is repeating that the "Human Resources Department" is actually a mistake of the "Personnel Administration Department".
- Related articles
- The website function of Laibin Talent Network
- Which courier company's sorter is well paid?
- What is the relationship between Kang Sheng Universal and Kangshengda?
- Proportion of reimbursement in Zibo Central Hospital
- Proportion of medical insurance reimbursement for residents in North China Oilfield
- Which company is the best for Chengdu loan?
- What is the reason why the multi-station automatic drilling and tapping machine does not advance or retreat?
- Where can I see the written test results of China Ocean University?
- Is there a restroom in Nanqiao An Baili underground parking lot?
- How about Zhuzhou Longmen Shangxue Training Institution?