Hi Peter,
I want to tell at the outset that I have personally very good regard for Aby as I have read some of the postings from this professional colleague.
Sometimes, in our discussions we tend to use certain terms such as 'wider sense', 'holistic approach', 'integrated approach', 'comprehensive manner' etc. when we are short of giving sepcific solutions to specific issues. This is a general tendency to which I also may not be exceptional. The moment we ask ourselves as to what do we really mean by such terms, we start thinking and try to add again more generalistic terms to describe what we meant, realizing well that the ground is slipping under our feet.
That apart, not only HR professionals but any executive is generally very happy to be called or to call himself / herself as 'watchdog' of the company. This goes well more with Finance / Internal audit departments, who generally have auditory powers on all departments on a matter felt more important - the money.
Such title gives him the great feeling that he is priviliged to freely suspect everyone, can selectively throw criticism/distrust on anyone at the sight of some strange happenings / findings and he is the one vested with this power and is greatly trusted with by the organization for doing this job.
I strongly feel that HR management is strenghtened by fostering mutual trust, irrespective of any number of disappointments you may come across in people-relations under worksettings. As you know, HR is about taking lot of initiatives, promoting learning, being proactive, developing people, not only monitoring the performance but also improving the performance of the people. I really do not understand how the watchdog anology gells with HR role.
Also, as I have told already, the watchdog role is being,
- mostly watching than acting;
- passive;
- behind the scene and not on the stage;
- reactive;
- responsive to aberrations but not responsible for corrective action;
- suspecting; and
- just ensuring compliance with rules set by someone else, but not participating in policy framing.
I request you to please think whether you would like to accept this kind of role for HR. Or, do you have any other definition for 'watchdog' role.
If we:
- do not accept criticisms (that sometimes may be sharp);
- do not accept contradictory view points;
- refuse to see the ground reality;
- refuse to accept the perceptions prevailing about our profession in various industries;
- think that we are great just because we are people's managers;
- be happy that our CEOs / line managers are nice to us (but do not involve us in key business decisions and strategies);
- be complacent and content with the powers (more perceived than real) that we seem to have (for recruiting / terminating / disciplining people);
- do not want to come out of our 'comfort zone';
then, it is upto us to decide whether to remain as watchdog or become a warrior.
(The meaning of Warrior here is 'One who is energetically engaged in an activity for a cause'.)
I do not want to win my arguments, but would like to strongly put forth some views for your thoughts. That's all.
Cheers,
Jeevan