Is the HR Manager Truly Managing Human Resources, or Is It Time for a Title Change?

Hi,

In organizations, the Finance Manager is responsible for managing the finances. Some departments may engage in buying, selling, or other transactions involving money, but ultimately, it is the finance manager who oversees the financial aspects.

Similarly, the Marketing Manager directly handles marketing activities and manages the market for the company.

The Projects Manager executes projects, managing all business projects of the company along with the department.

Now, considering the role of a Production Manager, it is logical that they handle production operations.

However, in the case of the Human Resource Manager, the human resources of the company are not under their direct management. Instead, they report to other managers within the organization – production staff to the production manager, sales staff to the sales manager, IT staff to the IT manager, and so forth. The HR Manager only oversees the HR team.

So, the question arises: How can we justify calling them the 'Human Resource Manager'?

If we argue that their role is primarily recruitment, it's important to note that recruitment does not equate to human resource management as the employees do not become part of the company until after recruitment.

If termination is considered the main aspect, it should be noted that termination alone does not define HR management, as terminated employees are no longer part of the organization.

Claiming that the HR Manager manages the performance of all employees is inaccurate, as department managers are usually responsible for evaluating their own team's performance. The HR Manager can provide a performance management system for the company, but they do not directly manage employee performance.

By analyzing these points, it becomes evident that the HR manager is the only manager in the company who does not directly manage the human resources.

This leads to two questions:

1. Is the HR Manager truly managing human resources?

Or,

2. Should they be designated as Manager - HRRM (Manager - HR Related Management)?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Jeeva.

Hi Jeeva,

The finance manager may be managing the finance. But, he is not earning the money for the company; it is the production (of goods or services) and sales, who are earning. Again, the finance manager is not spending the money. It is other departments. He is not in charge of exploitation (deployment) of funds, except for the money paid towards tax or interest or some finance charges. So, the finance manager is not the user of the funds, but regulates the funds, manages the funds and so is the manager of funds.

The Marketing manager is not using the market. He recruits the right market and hands it over to production; he facilitates the company's sales. The user of the market is the company - its production dept. When the marketing manager is not the user of the market, he is still called the marketing manager because he deals with the marketing aspects of the management.

The production manager is not the user of the products, but regulates the production. The user is the marketing and finally the customer outside the company. The machinery does not belong to production, but to the finance, who have made the capital investments on the company's behalf.

Similarly, the HR manager is not the user of the human resource. He regulates the use of this resource, hence could be said as managing HR and so is designated as the HR.

Govardhan

Hi Govardhan,

Your argument is not valid because you have neglected my important points in your reply. You see, the production is under the production manager, marketing is under the marketing manager, finance is under the finance manager (he receives the income, deposits in the bank, and gives the cheques to user departments, so he handles the money a lot), IT is under the IT manager, but... the human resource is NOT under the HR manager, neither is he handling the resource the way the finance manager is handling money, the production manager is handling the production, or the marketing manager is handling the market.

The human resource is allocated to and is under the management of other managers who are also managing other functions like finance, marketing, etc.

Jeevan

Hi Jeevan,

If none of us are handling HUMAN RESOURCE, then what are we doing?

I do not agree with you that we don't handle human resources. Don't you analyze their training needs, recruitment, soft skill improvement, development, career planning, growth, performance management, and so on? All other departments should also be taken into consideration with the point you are making. For example, the FINANCE MANAGER handles finance but has to create budgets in consultation with all other department heads. The marketing department generates sales in consultation with the R&D department and others.

Hey, think about it, Jeevan.

Cheers,
Archna

Hi Archna,

Please be analytical and please don't be laboring under the perception traditionally carried by our HR people that they are managing/handling human resources.

What you mean to say when you say we are identifying training needs, career needs, etc., is that we are handling/managing the needs of human resources. It does not mean we are handling human resources.

Let me make it more clear.

The objective of the production manager is production. But he is managing the machines, materials, and the human resources.

The objective of the marketing manager is making good sales. So, he is handling/managing the market, marketing techniques, and the human resources under him.

The objective of the finance manager is the effective use of funds, timely availability of funds, etc. He is handling the funds, the financial institutions, and the human resources under him for doing these jobs.

But, do you see what the objective of the human resources manager is?

Effective use of people?

Effective performance of people?

You list down the objectives. These are just 'the needs of human resources in the context of the needs of the company'.

So, the HR manager is handling the needs of human resources, trying to fulfill the needs to the advantage of the company he is working for.

But, where is he managing/handling human resources in the process? Only sporadically - when you make people sit in a training program, or when you address the gathering of employees in any company function, and occasions like that.

But, can that be called as managing human resources or handling human resources?

There is a difference between 'handling the needs of human resources' and 'handling human resources'.

The HR Manager is handling the needs of HR, and other managers are only handling HR.

Why don't you please think, Archna? And tell me your thoughts.

Jeevan

Dear all,

Do you agree with this view? Your responses against this view substantiating your stand are welcome, please.

Jeevan

HR Manager manages and looks after all the Human Resources, including the Production Manager or even the General Manager, to be literally correct. You are very well aware that all the promotions, increments, etc. are worked on in the HR Department, and various appraisals conducted by the department are taken into consideration towards the same. It is this department that manages who is the right person to be placed at the right position at the right time, considering his ability, skill, aptitude, and various other psycho-sociological factors. Furthermore, it is this department that lays down various policies for the regulation and management of personnel by key managers (indirectly, HR is present in every nook and corner of the organization). The area and scope of the HR Manager are unlimited, and he not only assists but also lays down various implementations to be implied by the middle-level management.

Newcomers to this field can be ridiculed that this department does not manage human resources and just maintains personnel records and audits and looks towards welfare only. Various psycho-sociometric analyses are done on this data to reach a consensus as discussed above and still remain a lot undiscussed.

What Say All?

Hi,

HR does manage Human Resources. Employees are assigned to various functions for performance, and to that extent, they work under the concerned functional head. Looking at the question from the narrow "line & staff" consideration, HR manages its department (in a line perspective), and therefore, it is managing human resources on par with other functional heads.

However, looking at the peculiar nature of the resource and the need for this resource to be outside of the Human Resource Department, it is incorrect to say that HR managers are NOT managing human resources for the following reasons:

1) HR primarily manages the collectivity of the resource.
2) It centrally controls vital functions in the interests of the organization (like time office, statutory compliance, leave administration, organizing payroll inputs, etc.).
3) Work execution due to differentiated skills is assigned to the functional heads as HR is NOT expected to extract work from a CNC Operator or from a software engineer because he is simply NOT equipped to do so!
4) Therefore, managing collectivity, maintaining and developing culture (with help from his associates), grievance handling, welfare activities, recruitment, etc., are significant contents of the HR job which he per force has to carry out in tandem with other functional heads.

It is for these and similar reasons it would be unfair to say or even think that HR is not managing HR. Further, a Production Manager who one feels is managing production is NOT making things and products. The same holds good for Marketing and other functions. They carry out their tasks by managing the resources (including the human beings), and in an identical manner, HR manages its function (including managing human resources) through other functional heads.

Thanks for starting the thread. It makes one think and develop clarity that with time gets blurred to even our own HR people!!!!

Regards,

Samvedan

October 23, 2006

Hi Jeevan,

I would like to add that HR is not about owning people; it is about channelizing resources and ensuring that the resources function optimally. It does not matter who they report to or what role they actually play. We could be talking about a line manager, an executive, or even the office assistant, for that matter.

We, the HR fraternity, are here to ensure that the right people are recruited, trained to fulfill their role in the organization, and that their skills are utilized in the best fitting job role. We also ensure that they have no issues affecting their performance, that they grow with the organization, that their performance is aligned with expectations, that their contributions are acknowledged appropriately, that underperformers are handled properly, that employee welfare is given serious consideration, and that employees exiting from the organization are managed with maturity. Not to mention that HR is also the platform through which employees voice their issues.

Therefore, in that context, the HR team manages the human resources of the organization as a whole. Similarly, the HR Head plays a key role in directing and controlling the crucial human resource functions that serve as facilitators in every well-managed organization.

Cheers,

Naina

Hi Jeevan,

A very interesting issue has been brought up by you. Hey, if not a Human Resource Manager, then why not think of some other designation? I believe that the most important part of an organization is under the HR Manager. Don't you see that all the manpower requisitions are sent to him, as well as all other activities like development, etc., of the human resource are done through him? Please don't forget that HR is more of a staff function. And as the role of staff goes, the HR manager assists every department.

You are also overlooking an important relationship of the HR manager with all other managers. The HR manager can, in fact, control all other managers, whereas it is not vice-versa. So, the HR manager has authority over others. Look at the brighter side, dear!

Cheers,
Pinks

Dear Samvedan, Aby, Naina and Archna and all other friends who are watching this topic,

I was really happy to see the arguments in support of the view that HR Manager is managing the human resource.

But, my happiness drained quickly when I read the articles on 'Meaning of Human Resource' and 'Role of HR department in organizations' in the Related Articles Section that appeared in CiteHR in this posting.

I am requesting all of you to please read these articles. (I am also attaching the articles for your ready reference with some key words highlighted.)

Some of the statements in the articles that are so disheartening and against your views are -

Personnel management is a responsibility of all those who manage people

Personnel management is a responsibility of all line managers in an organization, viz., general manager, production manager, marketing manager, finance manager, etc.,

Thus, all managers in the organization are vitally concerned with personnel management as they must achieve organizational goals through other people's efforts.

The personnel department is responsible for advising management from Managing Director to the lowest line supervisor on all area relating to the personnel management and industrial relations.

Personnel department generally acts in an advisory capacity; it provides information, offers suggestions and is not responsible for the end results.

PM executives exercise the monitoring and control function sparingly.

Friends, now please tell me whether I should stick to the view that HR Manager is not managing the Human Resource.

Again, are we all labouring under the impression that the HR manager is managing all the employees including other heads, the GM, the VP, and so on? Why did you leave the CEO out?

Again, let me tell you that the HR manager is handling people related issues and aspects of the organization. In the process, he cannot assume that he is handling a bigger role such as managing the human resource.

To give an example, if you have a Health department as a part of your company meant for helping employees to manage/maintain their health, then health being people related issue, the Health dept is helping for health maintenance. They are managing one aspect related to the people, that is, the human resource. They cannot assume that they are managing the human resurce, just because they are managing one aspect of people management.

Similarly, the HR dept. is handling certain people related issues of the organization. It does not mean HR dept. is managing the human resource.

HR manager is an internal consultant giving advice to the line managers.

HR manager is a specialist in handling people related issues - these could be people's performance problems, discipline issues, union issues etc. He is like a Doctor of Medicine sitting inside the company checking the people issues and giving prescriptions for solving those issues. But, he is not managing the people by doing this.

Just because the GM, VP, and other managers come to him (how many of them would like to come to him unless they are expected by the organization's norms and the CEO's direction is yet another question), if the HR manager thinks he is managing all of them, then he needs some psychiatric treatment, as someone said recently to me. :roll:

What is your view, please?

Jeevan

Hi friends,

Let us analyze what the HR manager is doing in the organizations.

1. Manpower planning:

Who is actually doing the manpower planning? Is it the HR manager?

Never. It is the line manager because he knows how many workstations are necessary to achieve the production/service level that the company has targeted. He knows how the technology can help reduce headcount in the department. One modern machine comes, so many people are out!

Who estimates the backup manpower needed? The line manager only.

Who can make the time-study and work study that help refine the manpower needs? Some other technical department.

Then, what is the HR manager doing for manpower planning? Simply compiling and consolidating the headcounts needed for all departments, preparing headcount budget statements and reports, putting it in the computer and then busily running here and there as though he invented this.

2. Recruitment:

Who needs the people? The line managers and other staff function departments, for doing their jobs. They want to select the right people. They are busy with their line jobs. They don't want to waste their precious time seeing the CVs of street walkers. So, they have dumped on the head of HR all the resumes - relevant, not relevant, useful, useless - for him to break his head. But, the HR person thinks he is really having the privilege of selecting the fortune few for employment.

Well. At least, does the HR manager evaluate these candidates? No. His job stops at designing some 'Candidature Evaluation Form' (the junior HR persons sometimes imitate the forms of other companies or CiteHR downloads).

He is part of the panel. Why? Because, this is how other managers want him to feel. Only then he will be happily 'scrutinizing' all the resumes to find few relevant amidst the rest meant for the waste paper mart. But, again, who dictates the criteria for resume screening? The line managers and the CEO.

Who conducts the psychometric tests for the candidates?

The psychologist engaged by the HR manager designs the test or a test readily available is used for the test. The HR manager is only organizing the test. He is not a practicing psychologist, after all.

Who evaluates the candidate?

The candidate's job knowledge, which is the most important aspect, is really evaluated by other managers who are in the job. (Of course, a candidate for the HR department could be evaluated by the HR manager)

3. Performance Management:

This is yet another area where the HR manager is greatly under the illusion that he is responsible for and managing this.

Who is doing the performance appraisal? The concerned department superior only.

Who is selecting the KPI or KRA? The HR manager is not trained to select appropriate KRAs for other functions. For example, finance. The HR manager is not competent to say that EBIT is a valid KPI (Unless he has education or experience in financial management).

Then, what is the role of HR in Performance Management? Just organizing, reminding all the managers that appraisals are to be done, distributing the appraisal forms, collecting back the filled-up forms, helplessly reading all the biased appraisals, doing some amount of moderation (it could be further damage), if there is some scope in the system, compile all the papers, consolidate and present to the CEO, take all the curses/abuses from the CEO because he represents (!) the big salary expectations of all the employees (while the line managers are tactfully behind the scene at this stage, but will take the credit from the employees once increments are granted as per recommendations.), going and looking at the employees to silently convey (how else) he was also a party to the increment granting process.

Then, preparing all the increment orders, signing part of these orders so happily as if he was the deciding authority, forgetting he is signing because other managers are too busy to do this signing ceremony with this piece of paper and this job is therefore given to HR. He can't change any figure in this paper, but has the privilege of choosing some phrases or words of the letter (if CEO agrees after he sees that all these words will not mean any additional expense to the company more than what the figures have already conveyed.).

Then, at last asking his team to file all these confidential (!!!) papers in the respective employee file.

Like this, if you see the role of HR in Compensation, Training or any other function called as HR function, the role is mostly clerical, advisory, secondary, and many times subordinate. :oops:

Your views are welcome, please.

Jeevan

Hi Jeevan,

Archana has a very valid point. The way you are looking at it is that you would want to be involved or rather track the employees' every move, which is physically and logically not possible. As you can see, the production manager would be in charge of machines, which are stationary and easy to monitor.

On the other hand, it is difficult to monitor the HR, and therefore there are managers to do the same for us. This means that everybody ultimately reports into you but not necessarily directly.

Even talking about effective use of people is when we place the employee in a suitable process where he would be more effective. The effective performance would be when we provide training for better performance.

Also, when you talk about the marketing manager, the direct translation is: "The objective of the marketing manager is making good sales. So, he is handling/managing the market, marketing techniques, and the human resource under him."

The objective of the HR manager is making a good team. So, he is handling/managing the HR, HR techniques, and the human resource under him, whom he would supervise and let you know if there is a problem.

There is a big problem in companies where the HR is too interfering and probes for problems faced, which causes a rift between the employees rather than keeping them happy, as everyone will want to say something and make a big thing over nothing.

So, it's better if we observe from the outside with the info from managers and not be involved in their day-to-day activities.

This is my opinion, feel free to differ.

Kavana

Dear Jeevs,

You don't want to look at the true picture and are just trying to vaguely highlight your imaginative approach.

It is very clear that HR is not primarily a direct function. Even though the Manpower of a particular department works with the functional head, it is the HR department that manages surplus manpower from one department to where it is necessary, keeping various skills, aptitudes, etc., required in view to have the right person in the right place at the right time; and also to consider the needs and approach of the functional head for the same.

And who do you think conducts the whole recruitment process? Managing a process is management, and the final result of that process is fixed if managed properly. An Electrical engineer cannot be recruited for a Civil job, even if the CEO wants it that way.

Who lays down the codes for performance appraisal? There are proper scientific tools to measure intangible social scientific elements.

For an organization having fewer than 10,000 employees and only one unit, the HR role can be flexible or, as you say, clerical. However, in large organizations, every aspect of psycho-sociological elements needs to be considered.

Thank you.

Best regards

Hello Kavana,

It is quite strange that some HR people are under the imagination that:

- They are primarily owning the people of the company;
- They have gracefully allowed the line managers to manage the people on behalf of HR;
- The line managers are responsible only for managing non-living resources;
- It is the HR manager ultimately responsible for managing the people, though they are not directly reporting to the HR manager;
- The HR manager is responsible for people's performance, compensation, hiring, firing, etc.; and,
- The job of HR is controlling.

What is the reality?

No one owns the people in any organization. The people's services are hired by the company for a salary. The HR department is an internal agent that does the hiring job on behalf of other departments because they don't have time to do this.

The line managers are not working on behalf of the HR manager when they are managing people. It is the other way around.

The HR department is not hiring on its own. They can hire only when the needs are raised and approved by the top management, especially the CEO.

The HR manager is neither firing. It is the line manager who wants to fire an employee. HR follows the procedure for firing and communicates the decision to the employee. (HR is always the conduit for bad news.)

The HR manager is not managing the people's performance. He is only maintaining the performance management system and reports aberrations to other managers for corrective actions.

The HR manager is not managing the compensation. The compensation is dictated by the job market, company's sales (present and future), the CEO's willingness, etc. The HR manager is only trying to stick to pre-approved salary scales for employees at different levels to prevent disparities.

When line managers find it hard to communicate or implement the CEO's decisions (e.g., a 10% salary cut for all employees or 15% retrenchment) or face difficult employees, they shift the problems to HR, labeling these issues as HR issues.

The job of HR is more of a facilitating nature than controlling.

HR personnel should not think they have the power to hire, fire, compensate, or manage the performance of people. They are only maintaining the people management system on behalf of the company, its CEO, and other managers.

It is like the maintenance department empowered to buy, maintain, or scrap machines. However, decisions are taken by other departments. The maintenance department may assign identification numbers to the machines, have inventory details of capital goods/equipment, shift machines between departments, etc. But, they are not managing the machines; it is the production department. Likewise, the HR department recruits, assigns employee IDs, creates employee records, maintains the PMS, and terminates employment contracts for some reasons on behalf of the company. But, is HR managing the human resource?

If you observe closely, the answer is - ?????

Please re-examine your opinion.

Jeevan

Dear Aby,

Well.

What are your comments about the articles that I have attached? Your view may be right. However, your arguments are not enough to support.

Jeevan.

Hi Jeevan,

It is true that HR managers do not directly manage people in an organization. All employees surely don't report to the HR manager; they can't, don't have to. Thus, the prime role of any HR manager is to ensure that all managers in the organization become their own people managers. The managers you refer to are themselves part of Human Resources.

Apart from the processes that come under HR functions, an HR manager's role is to help evolve a culture (as Sam mentioned) and climate for high-performing and satisfied employees, to ensure that all reporting heads know how to deal with people issues, at least the smaller ones. There is no point in arguing; what we should discuss is what role HR can play apart from traditional ones. You may refer to HR as a facilitator, but surely HR can be much more than a facilitator; we only need to think and show willingness.

I have witnessed sometimes that discussions start becoming hot and personal, which I believe should be avoided.

Thanks

Hi Jeeva,

Per my understanding, Human Resource Managers have different roles to play. Sometimes they act as facilitators or resources, sometimes like lawsuit help them manage the relation, like economists forecast the employee and in turn Company's growth. Since we have different roles with time, we are left unidentified.

The project manager appreciates the success with his team and rewards the team. Have you seen anyone in the industry ever rewarding an HR professional for getting them the best resources, working towards employees, and in turn, company integrity? This holds good even for all your said examples.

I define an HR Manager as unsung heroes.

Regards,
Veena Jain
98807-87887

Dear Veena,

You are right. The HR manager (his designation could be GM or VP...) stands with the CEO mostly and is therefore viewed with envy or sometimes jealousy. He assumes different roles as may be needed by the CEO or the critical circumstances of the company. He fights, struggles, keeps a lot of patience, and takes all the curses from everywhere - all for the CEO/the company. And, as you said, finally, he is the unsung hero. Why? How do we change this?

Dear Avikasit,

My arguments may be strong, but not hot or personal. I really want strong points that would go a long way to prove the important role of HR, redefine the role, and clarify to everyone beyond doubt.

Jeevan

JEEVA

I have read your postings and also other various comments on the same subject.

We must first understand the role of HR manager/executive in

Various cos., especially under the INDIAN conditions.

It seems to vary from company to company.

These variations could be , depending on the

-size of workforce

-policy of the company

-role definitions

-the line management concept

-functional managers' interest

etc etc

These roles could be

-in small cos—it is “manager of human resources”

-in medium cos – it is “manager of resources to recruit /develop/etc services

-in larger cos – it is the role of facilitator, who intervenes / provides support.

HRM DOES NOT MANAGE HUMAN RESOURCES [ PEOPLE ] TO PRODUCE OUTCOME

LIKE THE LINE MANAGEMENT [ sales manager/manufacturing manager etc]

HRM facilitates the effective use of resources like

-recruitment/selection

-training / development

-compensation packaging/salary /pay roll administration

etc etc.,

TO ENABLE THE LINE MANAGERS TO PERFORM EFFECTIVELY

AND IMPROVE PERFORMANCE / PRODUCTIVITY.



REGARDS

LEO LINGHAM

Dear friends,

This is for those who are advocating the idea that the HR Manager/HR department is managing the company's entire human resources.

I find in IT companies that the IT professionals are paid salaries much higher than their counterparts in HR or any other administrative department. The IT professionals are often referred to as 'billable resources' and are placed in a higher salary grade even though, in terms of years of experience or education level, they are comparable to the HR staff.

If the HR department is indeed recognized as 'managing' these billable human resources, why then is there such a discrepancy in salaries?

What is the salary of the billable line manager, who, according to some, is managed by the HR manager?

Are we willing to argue that salary is not a determining factor in this scenario?

Could you please provide me with insights into the status of HR in IT companies?

Jeevan

Dear friends,

This is for those who are advocating the idea that the HR Manager/HR department is managing the company's entire human resources. I find in IT companies that the IT professionals are paid salaries much higher than their counterparts in HR or any other administrative department. The IT professionals are often referred to as 'billable resources' and are thus placed in a higher salary grade, even though in terms of years of experience or level of education, they are equivalent to the HR staff.

If the HR department is indeed recognized as 'managing' these billable human resources, why then is there a discrepancy like this? What is the salary of the billable line manager, who, according to some, is managed by the HR manager? Are we going to argue that salary is not a factor in determining this?

Could you please enlighten me on the role and status of HR in IT companies? Is the HR manager truly managing the human resources in IT companies? (I am not referring to recruitment.)

Jeevan

Dear Sam,

To get a sweeper to sweep, it is not necessary that you know how to sweep. To get dinner ready for the mess daily, you do not need to know how to cook. Just the line of control to ensure that services are carried out as and when required, and also to determine when the element of management comes into play. Read various literal definitions of MANAGEMENT by scholars, and you will understand what a facilitator has to do with it.

Cheers!

Hello all,

I would prefer to turn the discussion on its head. The HR function is not a fortress or empire that we, as minions, are to defend! Yes, the organization or company DEFINITELY is!

My viewpoint includes the following:

1. Any person responsible for ensuring delivery by a team MUST be competent in certain HR functions - mainly team building and management. Thus, it falls upon the topmost HR functionary in the organization to ensure that systems, processes, control measures, etc., are in place to adequately cater to this vital requirement. Any malfunction in this aspect can potentially affect the business. Therefore, the scope of the HR Team, if it may be loosely termed thus, would effectively include all persons leading teams - irrespective of the domain.

2. From the above, you should be able to get a sense of an organization-wide framework - each person is part of the organization because he/she IS REQUIRED. And in order for the business objectives to be achieved, this organization-wide team must work in tandem at all levels. Thus, according to me, it is inconsequential to compare the HR manager's role by pitting it against the other departments - after all, the entire team is supposed to work towards a single goal rather than compete for supremacy among themselves when it is not required.

Let me try an analogy - the country has an HRD minister. Is he not supposed to be managing the Human Resource (ONE BILLION plus & counting)!! According to me, YES, the HR manager at any level is a vital contributor to the effective management of the Human Resource....and since this is the most valuable resource in any organization (or Nation), the other top functionaries are equally involved in the effort....this would be the top-level team which manages HR.

Best wishes,

Sushant

What I feel and believe is that every line manager is an HR Manager, and it should go like that because if the line managers are not good bosses, one cannot reduce attrition/turnover. "People leave bosses, not the company." The HR portfolio is there to regulate things, setting preferences to develop organizational behavior, culture, fine-tuning things to generate performance out of every individual through line managers.

Hi Jeevan,

When we discuss owning Human Resources, it's important to note that no one truly "owns" people within an organization. Even a Finance Manager or a Production Manager cannot lay claim to their teams; this concept is irrelevant in the context of HR management.

As Leo Lingham pointed out, the requirements of HR vary from one organization to another. The role of a Human Resource Manager is not about ownership but rather about managing the facilities and benefits for the workforce.

I disagree with the notion that HR professionals do not manage Human Resources. If not us, then who does? We are responsible for recruiting, selecting, training, developing, creating career growth plans, and other related activities—all of which involve managing the organization's human capital.

Consider this: when a consultant conducts career mapping for an individual, they are not managing that person but providing guidance. However, within a company, it is the HR department that performs such tasks. Our contributions indirectly impact employee performance and productivity; without this influence, calculating the ROI from training initiatives would be challenging.

What are your thoughts on this perspective?

Archna

Dear Aby, Sushant, Nizar, and Archna,

Thank you for your responses.

Aby,

Do you think the HR manager is to align the human resource to the business? If yes, how can he do this if he does not know the business or have 'the business literacy'? If he does not know how to sweep, how can he visualize/understand the HR issues related to managing the people who are into sweeping activity? If you closely observe, the CEOs, I mean the successful ones, the entrepreneurs, are quite passionate about the business they are into, they are keen to understand the business processes including the technical & HR processes, they love the products, and that is why they succeed.

If, as HR professionals, we keep saying there is no need to know sweeping to manage the sweeper, then that is a serious problem. If we try to manage the most important capital (HR) of the business with superficial knowledge or no knowledge about the business, then it cannot be good management. If you are appointed the HR manager of a logistics company having 1000 truck drivers, you may not be able to learn truck driving, but should go, sit with drivers while they are driving, observe them on the job. And, at least you must know car driving/traffic problems/vehicle-related problems so as to understand the HR/IR issues related to managing these drivers.

And on cooking, I need to say something. We should have cooking in our school and college as a part of the curriculum. Cooking is fundamental knowledge that any human being should have for survival. If you see, the defense personnel are able to cook their own food. I feel cooking should be taught as a compulsory practical subject in schools and colleges. Many foreign countries have it like this. I understand in Australia, cooking & baking are taught to everyone at the school level. It is part of the curriculum. If one wants to learn more about it, he can have the option, but basics are compulsory.

Sushant,

Your answer is really good.

But, HRD minister is certainly not managing the country's human resource as implied by the name of his post.

Human resource development is all about education & training, it is not about managing the so many other aspects of people management.

If you maintain HRD Minister is managing the country's human resource, so does the Health Minister as he is dealing with a more fundamental aspect of HR.

Nizar,

You are very much right. This is what I have been stressing.

Of course, I want to add certain points later to what you said.

But, I do not want to simply accept that HR manager is not managing the human resource and the designation is a misnomer.

Archna,

As I told you already, the company or the managers do not own any person working for the company or its department. The company is only hiring the .

So, ownership over the people or reporting relationships are not issues here. It is all about who is managing the human resource.

If you think HR manager is not directly managing the people, but indirectly, and ultimately he is the one managing all the human resource, let me tell you this. Suppose, the Operations Manager has mishandled a people issue and there is a strike because of it. Will you accept the ultimate responsibility and offer to quit?

When you are dealing with certain aspects of Human Resource Management, like training, career development etc. you have a tendency to assume that you are managing the human resource. But, is it true?

Please see how much responsibility a line manager has towards training his people on the job. On-the-job training continues to be one of the best training methods even today. So, the line manager is also dealing with training.

The HR manager creates and maintains only the system for training the people. Moreover, the HR manager is not the only faculty for training. He very much depends upon line managers, internal faculty, or external faculty.

If you have an external faculty training your employees, will you agree if I say he/she is managing your human resource? You probably will not because it is not proper to say yes.

Then, how does your presence inside the company will change the concept? Can you please throw more light on your view substantiating your point?

Recruitment is not human resource management because the resource at that point is not yet with the company.

Recruitment is a pre-HRM activity. You are just in the process of acquiring the resource.

Pregnancy & delivery issues are different from child care & child development issues.

Let me again give you the example of the company doctor. He is dealing with the health aspects of employees - the most important and fundamental need of people, people management, and also employees' health is the need of the company. It is purely people related. It is not about finance or production. Is he, therefore, managing the human resource? Yes or No?

Jeevaneyan

Hi Jeevan,

I think you have developed a mental block on the issue. OK, I would like to know your definition of Managing/Management first and then take on this topic further. It is important to know what you understand with this term and then discuss. I seriously believe that we HR manage the Human Resource in consultation with the respective HOD. If my child is not well, I manage and take him to the hospital, nurse him/her, take good care, and then manage the rest of the things for other members of the family. I call it management; I don't know what you name it. Similarly, if an employee is not well (stressed, depressed, sad, personal issues), I, as an HR Manager, will take care of him and manage to take him/her out of this situation. Isn't it Management.

Regards,
Archna

Dear Archna,

Thank you for providing a clear example illustrating who is truly managing human resources.

If your child is sick, you take the child to the doctor and get them treated. You claim to be the one managing the child as it is your child; the doctor is NOT managing the child but is only providing medical treatment.

Applying the same analogy, line managers refer their human resources to the HR department for assistance in resolving people issues. The HR manager, similar to a doctor, provides specialist treatment. They are not managing the human resource; it is solely the responsibility of the line manager, as you mentioned in your analogy that the doctor does not manage your child, but you are the one managing.

You manage your child in collaboration with the doctor.

The line manager handles HR in collaboration with the HR department, as per your example.

(I trust you will not claim to identify people issues independently without them being reported by line managers or discovered through surveys approved by top management.)

Best regards,

Jeevan.

Dear Abby,

The railway minister certainly administers the railways, including the railway employees. He is responsible for the railway's human resources as well. It is not the HRD minister who should resign holding responsibility for the mistakes made in railway management by railway personnel because the HRD minister is supposed to manage all the people of the country, including railway employees - as per Sushant's example.

This is what I have been saying.

However, HRD is certainly not HRM because the moment you mention management, it involves controlling resources, streamlining, disciplining, deploying for work, extracting work, and so on.

Development, as you mentioned, is vast, and human resource development, in particular, is a highly specialized area. That is why some major IT companies have separated this function from their HR departments, recognizing this fact, and have established Training Academies under a Dean or VP of Training who does not report to the HR Chief but to the CEO. When training becomes critical for business success, it will no longer fall under the HRM department, as is currently evident.

Thanks,

Jeevan.

Dear friends,

I would like to remind you that Administration and Management are different, as you may already be aware. I am not sure whether we should bring in government ministers' examples in our discussion on management, as they - the ministers - are not managers, but only administrators.

Moreover, a company is a corporate entity with narrower boundaries when compared to national-level administration. It is engaged in a specific activity of providing products or services, and the employees of this entity are closely associated with the products or services it offers. A significant portion of the employees are directly responsible for the production or services.

For a company to survive and grow, it must continue to specialize in its products or services. This specialization heavily relies on how employees tailor their skills towards this objective. Therefore, HR management must be tailored to the company's products or services, even though the term "management" conveys a broader meaning.

IT companies typically prefer HR managers from within the same industry. This preference raises the question: if HR management is primarily about dealing with people, why is this the case?

Human Resource Management is about managing the workforce.

Who manages the people at work when they are working? Is it the HR manager?

Jeevan

Dear friends,

I would like to just remind you that Administration and Management are different, as you may already be aware. I am not sure whether we should bring in government ministers' example in our discussion on management, as they - the ministers - are not managers but only administrators.

Moreover, a company is a corporate entity with narrower boundaries when compared to a national-level administration. It is engaged in a specific activity of providing products or services, and the employees of this entity are closely associated with the products or services it offers. A significant portion of the employees are directly responsible for production or services.

Unless the company continues to specialize in its products/services, it cannot survive or grow. Such specialization greatly depends on how the employees specialize themselves towards this objective. Therefore, HR management must be specific to the company's products/services, even though the term "management" conveys a more general meaning.

You may observe that IT companies prefer HR managers from other IT companies when they recruit. Why is this so, if HR management is primarily about dealing with people?

Human Resource Management is about managing the people at work - the workforce.

And who is managing the people at work when they are at work? Is it the HR manager?

Jeevan

Hi,

There is a forum on 'Why employees hate HR?' initiated by Mallet in CiteHR, as you could see. I have attached an article on 'Why we hate HR?' that appeared in the Fast Company magazine in August 2005. I am attaching the copy of the same article in this forum too, as it is suggesting that the HR Manager is not 'managing' but is only 'damaging' the human resource. This is quite a damaging statement, is it not?

Jeevan

Dear Jeev,

Your query reminds me of the case of parents fighting for the custody of the infant based on who can take care better.

The mother feels that she is the producer of the baby, so she can better understand the baby's needs.

The father thinks that he is the reason for the baby's existence, so he will take care in a better way.

Now, relate this situation to your request.

If you carefully observe all the department objectives and goals, you will realize they are mostly restricted towards their primary and principal objectives.

In the case of the Marketing manager, they are mostly involved in managing the market value of the company and generating leads for the organization.

For finance, generating and managing finances through all possible means are their primary objectives.

For the Production manager, meeting the scheduled targets is their mission.

In all three cases, their principal goal is to meet their objectives for which they have been tasked.

They are not managing people but managing finance, market, and production, etc., through the available human potential with them.

In your case, if you think that finance is purely managed by the finance manager, market is managed by the Marketing Manager, or other departments, then it's time to reconsider your views. Even if you study properly, HR managers are managing the finance of their budgets. The finance manager only provides them with the funds for their expenses on training, salary, recreation, tours, books, etc., same with the other managers of their departments.

Likewise, the principal goal of the Manager Human Resources is not to manage finance, market, or production but to manage the human resources for the different departmental needs and supply them as per requirements on time.

Please be clear that managing people does not mean merely what the other departments manage through available resources but managing through the entire available resources at micro and macro levels.

Here, I do not discuss training, discipline, or other issues related to HR because this will not justify your answer.

So, when the principal objectives of any department indicate their role and responsibilities, then it is called by their name.

Just like making a movie involves many people right from the dance director to the fight master to the costume designer, but the main lead goes to the Director who is the radix behind all these activities.

Regards,

Pranav

Dear All,

Pranav is right. This is the kind of argument I was expecting. Thank you, Pranav, for bringing to light certain valid points.

To conclude -

1. The HR Manager is the manager of the human resource beyond doubt, irrespective of whether all the personnel, including the key personnel in the organization, accept it or not, like it or not.

2. The HR Manager, unlike other managers, is NOT working WITH the people of the organization but FOR the people of the organization, FOR the organization of the people in every department, and through the people FOR the organization, which is nothing but the people again. His job is to impact the business of the organization through impacting the organization of the business - the people.

3. The HR Manager's objective is 'people of the organization' - their competence, welfare, compensation, career, etc., whereas the objective of other managers is certainly not the people. It could be achieving the production targets, financial targets, marketing targets, and so on depending on their functions deploying the people. Deployment of the human resource as such is not management of the human resource.

4. The HR Manager's efforts are directed at driving the people to achieve the goals through teams and teamwork - through structuring the organization of the teams appropriately, inculcating the right work culture in the structures.

5. The HR Manager may not be present in the workshops/worklines of the company because his workstations are the 'people's minds and brains.' He constantly works towards aligning the people with the organization - their knowledge, skills, and attitude. He has to, therefore, be working inside the minds of the people, inside their brains - imparting training, using applied behavioral sciences in every work setting of the company. He works in the minds, brains, and hearts of the people, highly influencing the people's competence and enabling them to remain as the warriors of the organization.

Thanks to everyone who participated and responded.

Jeevaneyan

Friend, you are viewing this from the HR angle. Then it is correct. But it is common to all managers like production, finance, etc. However, more than that, the HR manager should be a silent watchdog over the smooth functioning of the whole industry. This involves deciding how to recruit, whom to recruit, when to recruit, and if needed, when to remove or correct. Therefore, the HR manager's work is definitely Human Resource Management, and their work is also greater than that of any other in the industry.

Hi All,

It is definitely the HR department that manages Human Resources. The HR is associated with the processes or a particular line of business. They are responsible for handling employee grievances and policy-related issues. Any issues related to employees come through HR, whether it's counseling or workplace matters.

Mallet.

Hi Peter,

The silent watchdog role that you have assigned to the HR Manager is understandable. But, who decides in the organization that this watchdog's silence is to cease at a moment? Who is the master of this dog in your opinion?

And why should the HR Manager be only a watchdog tied to a corner, not participating in the events actively? Should he remain aloof almost always? Bark or bite only when something goes wrong?

Your further views, please.

Jeevan

Dear Jeev,

Your query reminds me of my school days. I had to issue a written apology for translating "Jo Garajte Hai Baraste Nahin" to "Barking Dogs Seldom Bite," as our teacher took it literally. The term 'watchdog' has nothing to do with barking and biting. The terminologies of 'master and slave' have long been replaced by 'employer and employee,' which is a fundamental function of HR in a broader sense.

It seems like you have the answers, but try framing difficult questions for them. However, the method you use includes some denigrating words. Please don't mind, but your past posts clearly indicate that you are not entirely satisfied with the concept of HR, and you may have felt suppressed in this field. Perhaps your superiors have not been very supportive, and you need to understand the distinction between a tail-wagging dog and an employee, in order to achieve satisfaction in the corporate world.

God bless you!

Dear Aby,

Let me tell you that I am very proud to be in the HR profession, and I am a happy professional.

It is not that I am suppressed in this field. I am personally a successful person. Indeed, the field is suppressed, irrespective of whether you are aware of it or not. As you could see, there is a tremendous awakening in this field by the HR professionals across the country. It is suppressed because it is emerging as a movement rather than as a profession. It is emerging as an evolution rather than as a phenomenon.

Will you not agree that HR is mostly used as the CEO's mouthpiece, becomes a scapegoat when people are to be blamed or fired en masse, suffers the blows from the line managers, gets its role interpreted as per the wishes of the CEO or other key personnel in the organization?

If we all think everything is fine with HR everywhere, then we are heading for extinction, I think. And this would be at a point in time when we have a promising future.

Please see closely. The degenerative words are not mine. What wider sense would you give to the watchdog analogy? Why this analogy at all? Whatever you say, the watchdog reminds me only of a reactive role, not a proactive one. It reminds me of 'silent observation,' 'reacting occasionally to deviations when found,' etc. What more?

I am only reminding the low self-esteem contained in some persons' expressions. I am only pointing out the presumptions reflecting in some statements made by our HR colleagues, assuming a superior role in the organization. What good would it do if we all say HR is great, HR is the manager of the people, and such things, without the understanding of the issues involved, the reactions of the business world to the HR profession?

Jeevan

Hi Peter,

I want to tell at the outset that I have a 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 specific solutions to specific issues. This is a general tendency to which I may not be an exception. The moment we ask ourselves what we really mean by such terms, we start thinking and try to add 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 themselves a 'watchdog' of the company. This goes well, especially with Finance/Internal audit departments, who generally have oversight powers on all departments on matters felt to be more important - the money.

Such a title gives them the great feeling that they are privileged to freely suspect everyone, can selectively throw criticism/distrust on anyone at the sight of some strange happenings/findings, and are the ones vested with this power and greatly trusted by the organization for doing this job.

I strongly feel that HR management is strengthened by fostering mutual trust, irrespective of any number of disappointments you may come across in people-relations under work settings. As you know, HR is about taking a lot of initiatives, promoting learning, being proactive, developing people, not only monitoring performance but also improving the performance of the people. I really do not understand how the watchdog analogy aligns with the HR role.

Also, as I have already mentioned, the watchdog role is 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 about 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 viewpoints;
- 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 up to us to decide whether to remain as a 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

Hi Jeeva,

You mentioned that an HR manager is recruiting people, handing them over to other departments, terminating them, and letting them out, which is not the actual HR job.

But if you clearly notice, the designation is Human Resource Manager. There is a very crucial thing that this manager is handling. It includes:

Checking out the need for human resources in the organization, searching for suitable resources, assessing their capabilities to be an asset for the organization, and then allocating them to the respective department.

So, these functions involve the basic functions of any manager because a manager is someone who plans, organizes, directs, implements, and controls. This is what an HR manager does.

In addition, the HR manager is responsible for recruiting project managers, finance managers, and anyone else apart from the board of directors. An organization is full of human resources performing different functions, and it is the duty of the HR manager to coordinate with all the different departments to ensure smooth operations.

Furthermore, managing salaries, conducting performance appraisals, handling grievances, organizing refreshment activities, policy-making, and managing employee relations are also part of the functions that an HR professional deals with.

Considering all these responsibilities, any person who is accountable for ensuring the smooth functioning of the organization and providing a healthy work environment is an HR manager, and this role is crucial.

Sapan

Dear Aby,

After giving serious thought to your email again, I feel like stating the following: If a professional is able to be very comfortable with his present, is treated nicely by everyone around him, is not criticized, is not suppressed by competition, has never faced crises, struggles, humiliations, or ill-treatments in his career, is able to walk with his head always up in the sky, is able to feel secure and safe, and is not required to check whether the fundamental rules of his game are changing, then he must be a very lucky guy. However, I would suggest that he reads the book 'ONLY THE PARANOID SURVIVE' written by Andrew S. Grove, President & CEO of Intel Corporation.

Regards,
Jeevan