HR's Blind Spots: Do You Think They're Missing the Bigger Picture in Organizations?

Send me your comments... I feel there are several areas where HR fails.

1. HR professionals fail to see the business.
2. There is no clear line of work for the HR person. They keep themselves busy printing out appraisals, payroll, etc. They really don't see where their interface with the organization adds value.

Do you see any more?

I have read the article and can make this conclusion:

- HR can't align the business goals with the correct program to support them.

I think HR fails because many times they have to act only like puppets of management and can't make their own decisions.

Thank you for the corrections.

No specific role is defined for HR professionals today. Anyone can become an HR professional, no matter if they hold a degree in finance, electrical engineering, marketing, or personnel management.

HR fails to make the line management personnel realize and accept that HR, in respect of their own personnel, is their direct responsibility. However, in India, by and large, the line personnel do not accept this part of the role because they do not want unnecessary headaches attached to it.

If you wish to see HR function like an orchestra, one should observe some good European companies functioning in Europe. There, manpower being a scarce and costly resource, HR is valued very highly, and the HR processes are owned and cared for by the line managers as far as their own people are concerned.

P.R. Joshi

HR never fails. HR is far more than just handling your basic HR job responsibilities. It is an approach where you are managing the company to generate maximum output from the current available resources. If you are working with a new venture, then you may just end up doing the leave calculations, appraisals, taking printouts. But if you are working in a good company, then the responsibility adds up. This may require having the knowledge of what is happening in the other departments too, i.e. outside the HR department. Sometimes you need to bridge the gaps, keep a check with line managers so that everything is in place, talent management, give valuable contribution to change management, etc.

Thanks, Munmun.

Dear All,

If we believe HR fails, then it is our own failure.

In my opinion, HR never fails. But you will appreciate the fact that HR deals with the most complex thing in the company – human resources.

Every day, we see so many HR professionals interacting professionally in this forum. They share valuable inputs, insights, clarifications, and practices from their respective organizations.

HR constantly faces challenges on various facets such as recruitment, compensation, welfare, administration, statutory matters, retention, industrial relations, training, talent retention, and employee development, and we emerge successfully each and every day.

If one restricts HR's role to mundane clerical jobs, it is so. On the other hand, if the same person feels that they decide the future of the company by providing the right resources – employees. Good employees can build strong organizations, and it can be vice versa if the employees are bad.

Here I would like to cite the fact that Mr. VRS. Natarajan, CEO of BEML, is a HR professional. So, it all depends on how you perceive your role.

ALL THE VERY BEST!!!

M.V. KANNAN

In my opinion, HR fails when other people just take it for granted. They seek HR solely to fulfill the manpower gap and manage certain paperwork formalities. However, it ultimately lies in the hands of HR personnel how significantly they perceive their position within the organization. It is crucial to always align HR strategies with the organization's goals.

Regards,
Sonia Mehta

I think that those who believe HR fails in developing business value for the organization are not familiar with real HR practices. They must embrace new innovations in this sector to enhance HR in all aspects.

All the best and have a nice time.

Regards,
MAAn

The Main Problem -

1. Management doesn't allow HR to operate without bias.
2. In India, HR is not respected. Join a company abroad and see the difference.
3. Companies that have a dedicated HR department are not inclined to develop it (Training needs of HR).
4. In India, all this 'Chalta Hai Attitude' when it comes to HR hurts it the most.

I also agree with Pritha. Decisions depend on upper management. HR does not have any choice but to accept and implement them. HR decisions should also be taken into consideration.

I agree with all of you depending on the situation. HR does fail sometimes, like when HR - I mean the person gets tangled emotionally and in administering policy, not taking responsibility for actions, fearing what top management or the board would say if opinions and views are voiced.

I feel that as an HR person, I do fail sometimes when I mix issues - HR itself can never fail, but we as human beings fail when we are not responsible and lack the maturity associated with HR policies, processes, and procedures.

If there is a lack of support from the company management, then HR would fail. So, it will be unfair to put the blame for any such crisis that a company might face in running its business.

NOTE: HR was created to manage and address issues and concerns related to the following:

- Planning
- Organizing
- Selecting
- Directing/Leading
- Controlling

Nonetheless, HR is a department that is considered a change agent, administrative expert, strategic partner, and consultant, which is just one component of company management.

Hope this quote can be of help.

DELFIN SUACO JR. III HR ADMIN & LEGAL MANAGER Vakrangee E-Solutions, Inc. Vakrangee House Philippines

As far as HR activities are concerned, I think HR might fail in the retention of employees. I feel that's a big challenge!

Regards,
Priyanka.RK

Hello,

I think that HR fails if they are more 'personnel management' focused instead of being 'people-focused'. The HR team should not be stuck in paperwork only but should try to set up plans to satisfy employees. Moreover, a barrier to HR success is the lack of commitment from management. Management plays an important role in the success of HR plans; if management doesn't believe in HR, then HR fails from the start.

Regards,
Daisy

Dear All,

I would say it all comes in the profile. You are hired with an expectation to do the HR administrative work – if yes, you cannot say the HR fails there.

Now, the challenge lies in how much value addition you do.

All apart – many HR professionals strongly believe that HR acts as a catalyst, motivator, binder, fulfilling all that is required to keep people happy. They are responsible for checking if all is well with the hired staff, if the company is on track as per employee laws, and if your people are facing any problems or have any concerns. No one restricts you from knowing the business processes or a little about operations to better understand the employees at operational levels. It is we who restrict our profile and do not try to upgrade it.

Why not compartmentalize it into two parts – 1. that's basic and 2. that's value addition. Just go ahead and work on it. Part 1 is regular and in the system. Take some time out and believe that you can do a lot more than expected from you. Everything is possible and can be implemented; the rest is left to you.

With all regards,
Pratibha

The Role of HR Professionals in Organizations

HR fails when an HR professional working for the organization is not able to make the line managers realize their need and importance. We HR professionals deal with the most unpredictable resource, and therefore, it is our expertise that will decide the role we play in an organization.

Regards

HR will never fail if he or she can handle situations in an amicable and diplomatic way. It is also very important that we represent to the management in an acceptable and convincing manner to achieve our goals.

Regards,
Ranga

I guess the most important asset of any functional organization is the employees. The area of operation, when focused on non-fruitful activities or procedures, leads to dissatisfaction. Norms or procedures framed for organizational functioning without considering the employees' interests could create the perception that HR implementation is deteriorating.

Dear All,

I may not accept HR never fails. Because sometimes HR is failed by their respective seniors or proprietors of the business.

HR professionals are highly valued in any organization because they are the ones who interact first with newly recruited employees. Therefore, any employee working in an organization will have respect for the particular HR person. Whenever an employee sees the HR, their mind says, "HR is the one who believed in me and gave me this opportunity when I was looking for one."

HR deserves more respect than any other employee in an organization due to several reasons. However, some superiors or immature bosses may not tolerate the respect given to HR in their presence. They may intentionally undermine HR by involving them in projects or assignments destined for failure or assigning tasks unrelated to growth, thereby compromising their consistency and tarnishing their image within the organization.

This situation occurs in many small and medium-sized organizations. Those who have experienced such circumstances, please support me so that our other friends can understand the truth.

HR, although a very interesting and accountable portfolio in any organization, but fails majorly because most people join this stream as they do not choose other options. Thus, the thrust required to take interest in deliverables never develops from the very core of its inception.

HR needs to address important portfolios like recruitment and iteration, which in turn contribute to the growth of the organization. However, the sanctity of its importance is seen less in most of the personnel handling such profiles. Organizations having a larger HR base as a department with Trainings as a subset or parallel vertical in the organization have proven to handle it more maturely than sole presence.

Regards,
Simrandeep Singh
Chandigarh Placements
[Login to view]

I think the importance of HR as a function is undermined by the line managers and tasks that are mundane, which are relegated to HR, consuming their time in redundant activities. There is a lack of decision-making authority and mechanisms for the enforcement of HR initiatives. Role ambiguity and a lack of definiteness of scope of work result in HR personnel ending up doing all sorts of tasks not being done by anyone else. However, if measures are taken to correct the flaws in the system, HR can attain its potential as the backbone of a company. Clear communication of policies across the organization and internal automation for effective data management are key to strengthening the HR function in any organization.

HR fails in my respective organization in just one instance. They do not have adequate screening tests for our customer service representatives who are responsible for answering complicated insurance claims-related inbound call inquiries from healthcare providers (hospital and physician billing staff). The pay for these positions is less than average, and we have to hire a great number of people quickly for large contracts.

The organization has to outsource to a temporary agency that has low standards for recruitment (prior experience, entry-level test scores are modified, etc.).

Hi Guys,

I believe no profession can fail. It is the person who holds the profession that fails. Education and knowledge are like weapons in your hands. One must use them to the best of their ability. All professionals must uphold good morals, ethics, and understanding.

Hope you guys are with me.

Regards,
CS Mukesh TANK

A well-oiled (lubricated) machine does not fail if all the parts are in sync with each other. If all the organs are in complete harmony with each other, there is no reason why an organization should fail. The HR department is considered the most hostile within an organization. The contemporary hire and fire policy has made it dreaded. No arm of the organization is willingly prepared to cooperate with HR. The ultimate failure of a plan or project is labeled as bad HR policies. HR professionals are the most vulnerable within the organization themselves. I have noticed that most HR professionals are always on the lookout for a change. Most statutory compliance requirements are to be met by HR personnel. Yet, they have no say in the business propositions, and when one such proposition fails, the HR department is blamed for poor talent selection. The HR department is always poorly staffed and overburdened. It is the mediator between the employees and management and has a tightrope to walk. One wrong step, and you are doomed.

The HR department has to maintain a very sensitive balance and take steps very carefully. A good feedback mechanism is always handy. HR professionals have to develop a strong feedback strategy from the get-go. HRs have to tread with utmost caution.

Hi, @PR Joshi,

I have worked in Europe and yes, there is scarcity there. However, HR is a support function that typically never works on day-to-day issues. In Germany, the HR 'assigns' you to your boss. So, if you have issues with your work profile, the HR steps in. Again, since the HR represents the company, your resignation is to HR, not your boss!

That being said, I don't believe that this is a reason for HR not performing well in India. The expectations of the interface are one thing (HR with Line Managers), and the communication and execution (and control) of the interface are another. Most of the time, HR professionals do not understand this issue. If you want to understand this point, ask 20 HR professionals in your company: What is their role? Write it down. Ask another 20 people in your company (NON HR), what the HR role is. Write it down. The result is obvious!

@D4n4n9, your observations were good.

@MV Kannan, Your response is interesting. I am in the management consulting business and I own a company. If you consider the factors of production, I am actually focusing on profitability and a rate of return. Many HR professionals get the priorities mixed up. They don't know the balance between the business and the human elements. One can always take a reactive stance, but can you identify the RoI for each of the activities you do?

@Sonia, that's a great point.

@Munmun, please skip the philosophy. We are discussing why the department/function fails.

@Ashokadas, your point is excellent. We only need to substantiate the cost-benefit of not recruiting 'anyone' as HR.

@Surendra Bhanot, Your point is noted. However, it only means that technology and management systems are not leveraged properly. I have seen several companies where the appraisals come in late! This is a ridiculous management system. (To put it in your words, everyone is overloaded and understaffed!) Further, when the HR personnel get involved in nitty-gritty issues, he is not leveraging technology and is not reinforcing the management system. Naturally, every system will fail in such a situation.

Everyone knows that HR is not deciding on the hiring and firing; they merely monitor the process and act as agents to facilitate that. So, I don't buy that this is a reason why HR is failing!

@Shookit, good point. It is the reactive posture that is being forced here, as has been mentioned earlier as well.

@Supriyab17, excellent points, but it's again ending up in a blame game.

@Simrandeep, naturally augmenting staff helps the scope, but it doesn't always mean an effective workforce.

@hrtechindia, don't you think this happens among other departments too? It's called 'politics' in common language.

@simmy2009, that's a great observation.

@ranga, it seems reactive. Don't you think it lacks being proactive?

@Maan, Failure means that HR is not giving the 'real value' it is supposed to... :-)

@Anilhrm, good point... It's the interface, like any relationship... there are two parties involved...

@Pratibha Nimbalkar... A great observation... One of my earlier bosses said: Develop yourself, and the organization will naturally develop! Great suggestion... I really appreciate your perspective and objective assessment.

@Daisyathen, is this the blame game with the management? Someone who is paying you money and justifying your sustenance... is that person the one to be blamed for your failure as HR? Think about it... :-)

@mr.suaky... Don't you think you are trying to be a 'larger than life' projection... Well, an organization is fundamentally formed to leverage the 'division of labor' and 'synergizing specialties'... If you are trying to do the entire management yourself, naturally, the organization will fail... It's like having 100 kings ruling the same kingdom!!!

@Vina Golam... Nice point

@Drunkenmaster, I have worked abroad as well... It is a similar situation out there too... Especially, the US is pretty bad when it comes to these kinds of issues

Thanks a lot for your comments. As a good HR practice, I have tried to provide timely feedback! :-)

My only problem is that most responses seemed to be pretty superficial and not touching the 'real core'. Further, it appears that most people have faced this kind of situation but have failed to CONSTRUCTIVELY DEMONSTRATE how they could change it (providing a business case that could help management buy-in). Somewhere, the root cause is not being identified correctly... I would love to see more responses with a little more 'detail' in the opinion with a view to 'demonstrate' the failure mode better.

Regards, Nikhil Gurjar President Consulting Connoisseurs <link no longer exists - removed>

The Importance of Recognizing Human Potential

Wherever the 'human potential' is not recognized, HR will fail.

Understanding Business Success

Wherever 'humans' do not understand 'business success', HR will fail.

Exhibiting Balance in HR

And finally, wherever HR does not exhibit any 'balance', HR will fail.

Regards, AVS

1) The crucial role of HR comes into the picture when recruitment takes place. So, when the right people are not in the right place, HR fails.

2) When HR is not concentrating on employees' suggestions and problems, then HR fails.

3) When HR is not modifying the jobs of the employee through enlargement and enrichment, employees feel the work is monotonous. In such cases, HR fails.

4) When HR is not connected at an emotional level with the employees, then HR fails. However, this connection should be to a reasonable extent.

HR is vital since HR is the denominating resource in any organization. However, they do not realize this, and thus they are not in a position to lead their role effectively.

Regards,

@avsjai, Can you 'objectively demonstrate' what your point is? To me, it's some kind of a 50,000 ft up-in-the-air song!

@malinichandran, well, I went through your article. It's an interesting perspective. I do not know if that's the entire thing.

@preeti h. sharma, nice observations. I would say that these are more of characterizing failures rather than characterizing the reasons for failure.

@jaya..., Is this attributable to the education system (or the lack of it) for HR pros?

HR is a powerful department in any organization. It fails when HR personnel try to hire a well-deserving candidate for a position at a fair price, but management is not interested in quality and only wants the position filled at a lower remuneration. In such situations, the HR department feels helpless and gives up in front of management.

Regards,
Harmeet Singh

Hi Readers,

In my opinion and experience, I would like to share the shortcomings/failures of the HR department. However, the points put forward are based on my personal and limited experience only. You may relate to some or all deficiencies/difficulties faced in your nature of the job as well.

Recruitment: The selection of the right candidate ultimately rests with line managers. Despite providing them with a lineup of candidates who match the job description, skill sets, qualifications, attitude, etc., which are preliminarily screened by HR executives, these candidates are rejected or selected based on trivial reasons that are not even properly documented. This could be due to personal bias, lack of interviewing techniques, egos, prejudice, favoritism, lack of empathy, etc. This lack of understanding between HR and the hiring department results in increased recruitment costs, as line managers end up hiring the wrong person for the job.

Training: In many cases, the HR department is not fully involved in the nature of the line employees' jobs. They lack detailed knowledge of tasks, duties, responsibilities, and accountability for various positions. Therefore, in the name of training, they only act as coordinators to arrange training programs suggested by line managers, which may be more or less technical and job-specific. After the orientation or induction program, HR often steps back, merely giving presentations, etc.

Appraisals: HR's involvement in appraisals is often limited to coordinating the collection and summarization of appraisal forms. In some instances, HR acts as a reminder for managers to conduct appraisals and submit results. The quality of appraisals between employees and managers depends on the relationship shared by the two parties, leading to issues like favoritism, personal bias, ego, and prejudice, which do not provide a realistic evaluation of employee performance based on agreed-upon KRAs/KPIs in the job description.

Image of HR in the companies: HR executives are often seen as the pretty faces who primarily handle paperwork required for quality certifications in the company. If an employee approaches HR with a genuine reason, complaint, or concern, they are typically advised to resolve it with their department manager.

HR personnel often lack influence in succession planning, promotions, salary negotiations, etc., within the management. Policies, procedures, or ideas introduced by the HR department for better human resource management are sometimes dismissed by line managers as "just another policy" that will soon be forgotten.

Overall, HR executives are perceived as clerks responsible for making reports, fulfilling statutory requirements, and filing documents, ultimately making the HR department seem like a cost center.

Suggestions for Change: To transform the HR department and its staff into true contributors to the business, there should be a focus on enhancing collaboration and communication between HR and other departments. HR professionals should be more actively involved in recruitment, training, appraisals, and strategic decision-making processes to ensure alignment with the company's goals and values. Additionally, fostering a culture of transparency, fairness, and continuous improvement within the HR department can help enhance its reputation and effectiveness.

Thanks and Regards,

Hussain

Dear Seniors & Respected Colleagues
Actually I think that HR fails in the “ H “ part. The human aspect of it they are to busy perfecting how the payroll works, how travel allowance is paid, how the bonuses are worth and they forget the employee capability is all about the motivation the emotional intelligence the career planning part from the employee point of view, employee development in the organization, they are busy with the training part but they don't check on their development . employee relations, employee value to the organization, the team working aspect. I think we have great books written about the human aspect of human resources but sincerely speaking I don't think much of it is applied in the really world they are still words in books awaiting application.
Then Again its I have developed this opinion based on experience as an HR Specialist working in Gulf

Greetings,

Your examples are from different situation in an environment where the HR is passive. It's the management who takes the call and HR merely follows it. This situation cannot be tagged as HR's failure as the innate structure is different.

An HR failure is a situation, where the HR is the decision maker, yet it takes initiative where they fail to achieve, the intended.

Its true, every situation depends on its player. But the organization, where the owners care the least for HR and is hostile to any HR initiative, even the strongest HR would fail. In such a situation running the operational and statutory functions remains the responsibility. There is hardly anything to learn from such systems. Surviving to be on the job is what every HR would do.

Whereas in companies such as Tata, with better focus on HR should be considered by measuring its initiatives. Here's a link to one of the org initiative, which could have resulted in a huge HR failure but was given a new direction. http://citehr.com <link updated to site home>
I guess we discuss situations like this, to create our takeaways.

Regards,
(Cite Contribution)

@Cite Contribution, the Tata Steel case is great, only... it was done with an external consultant! I know that consultants are still helping TS even today. Especially after having visited the shambles out in the Corus plant a few years ago, it is quite expected :-)

@Anayaat, thanks for your opinion.

Nikhil Gurjar
President
Consulting Connoisseurs

@Harmeet, there is an inherent contradiction in the posts... HR kind of stays away from technical evaluations. This is ascertained by the posts as well. So, the question of the 'good or better' candidate from an overall perspective is not an HR evaluation. Secondly, from your own business perspective, considering your value chain, the position is expected to deliver a particular value for the stakeholders. If you consistently skew that equation, you are bound to jeopardize the value proposition of the business. Just think of it from the 'value' perspective.

@Hussain, On recruitment: That is a great point. At the same time, you might want to promote a Contract-to-Hire Mechanism in the company. I agree with everything you say. It really tells us some of the failure points...

Nikhil S. Gurjar
President
Consulting Connoisseurs

Hi (Cite Contribution),

Thanks for your input. I agree with you that what I have mentioned in my experience are not overall HR failures, but they can be termed as HR failures in the organization due to the type of culture of management thinking. Companies like TATA or any other publicly held company where shareholders are not directly running the company and hire a team of professional experts of respective functions, then the company is managed professionally depending on the leadership of the management. We can even call it a company that is run on democratic lines. In my case, it's a family-owned business group, so more or less, it runs like a monarchy. However, what I have mentioned in the functions of HR, I think we all face at some point, as human bias and emotions are always at play.

This can be true for HR professionals as well. When HR professionals conduct preliminary interviews, there are chances of personal bias, favoritism, and prejudice coming into play indirectly. As per your point, this could be where HR is the decision-maker, takes an initiative but fails to achieve what is targeted, that is unbiased, neutral judgment.

Thanks for your feedback. I'm new here, and I need to learn a lot. The more I know, the more I want to know!

Thanks and best regards,

Hussain

Thank you for the response. Please provide some information on the contract-to-hire mechanism and how it may help HR functions in recruitment.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Hussain

Contract-To-Hire is an arrangement where you first hire a person for a specific task. This is typically a limited timeframe (usually around 6 months). Once he is on the job, you get to evaluate how he works, and you can consider extending his tenure by hiring him as a perm at the end of the stipulated period.

The advantages are many (refer to my newest post on contract hire), but I will list a few:

1. It allows for quick recruitment.
2. Since it is a contract recruitment, the incumbent is typically paid by the hour, meaning that you have better control over his productive time.
3. The recruitment is to fulfill a specific task. Hence, it offers more flexibility to the employer when it comes to cultural fitment, etc., unlike regular recruitment, where the relationship is treated as a 'married-for-life' situation.
4. The incumbent doesn't get any benefits of perm employees. Thus, the long-term costs are typically lower.
5. Unlike probation, this is easier to terminate because there is no commitment for the employer.
6. Typically, agencies are seen to offer better service levels depending on the culture of the company (which is why they are popular in the first place).
7. Companies don't have to invest in employee training.

I have seen numerous biases when it comes to recruitment. However, contract employees... well, they are the people who worry the staff less than anything else. So, it is more objective and focused on the job that the company has in mind.

Thanks and Regards,
Nikhil

Greetings,

One of the many cases with data may not be the ideal case for this discussion, but might add to certain HR-based features we are brainstorming here. http://citeman.com <link updated to site home>

I had invited my friends to join in; here are their comments:

Allwyn Lobo: Let's take the latest example... Most of the companies have announced their Q2 results... Not even in a single company did I see the HR as part of the announcement. It only involved the CEO and CFO... What about the CPO? (Chief People Officer). Is it time for the industry to change? However, when my CEO made the Q2 announcement, I showed him an HR involvement in it.

David Whitehead: I maintain HR people never can reach the highest levels of Ulrich's model.

I agree with Allwyn, even if the announcements include HR, it's barely about the initiative, no quantified (revenue-based) result is ever shared. The dashboard maintained offers data on Recruitment and attrition. Training is counted by hours and not the after-training consultation and real-time implementation. I am not asking for the testimonials on training programs but the effort to collect data on how the training and the effort invested are showing results.

Waiting to listen from our fellow HRs.

Regards, (Cite Contribution)

Hi (Cite Contribution),

That's an interesting example. I am unable to get specifics from the example. How small was the company? How many people were in the team? What difference in pay are we talking about (5%, 10%, or 50%)?
etc...

Commenting on the case, therefore, will be rather premature. All in all, it appears that the pay structures, the workloads, and the capability of the individuals were the issue. Many times, the 'headcount' approach that is popular in scientific management simply bombs!!! I have seen that at a few companies myself. The logic applied is: If he could do it, you could too!!! And this often comes from the owner of the company, who has a lesser understanding of the possibilities there.

Some generic remarks though...
1. I don't think attrition has ANYTHING to do with training! One is for the job (internally focused) and the other is for greener pastures (usually economically driven and externally focused).
2. With a 6-month average employment span, naturally, there is inadequate incentive to work longer. Looks like the job was a springboard to a career elsewhere.
3. Other forms of profitability checks might be more interesting... looking at contracts for specific tasks (whereby the person also gets the flexibility to keep his utilization optimized).

It is often a problem that needs changes at the business owner's end. The way forward would, therefore, be that the HR manager must work closely with the head man (since you said it's an SME, this should be possible) and get him to understand the critical business drivers. This would be critical. A buy-in from the head is essential, and educating him to the business realities from an HR perspective is important. Most times, professionals stop at making management aware. They need to go a step further and EDUCATE the management. This is ONE MAJOR AREA THAT CAUSES A DICHOTOMY, AND THE HR FAILS.

I don't know what you do for a living, employed, or in business. Anyway, anything you do, thereafter, must have answers to the following three questions from the CEO, the shareholders, and the employees:
1. What's in it for me in this quarter?
2. What's in it for me in the next 9 months?
3. What's in it for me in the next 1.5 years?
Most initiatives you have identified, though well-meaning, do not actually answer this question to the desired level of detail or 'intensity'. It makes sense to look at these questions in the context of your suggestions. This is another MAJOR REASON why HR fails and is also answering the question as to why HR doesn't feature in the Q2...

Lastly, you cannot make a very capable system with incapable people and faltering infrastructure. Staffing has multiple perspectives. It is essential to explain and educate the other departments on the implications of this factor. At a software company that I worked in, the entire 2000 employees had just 2 HR personnel. There were 6 outsourced individuals. But those two were far more capable... Bottom line, your measures have only partially addressed capability... I might be a trained driver. But if I were to drive 500 km every day on Indian road conditions, I might have issues...

Please don't take this as a criticism otherwise. As management consultants, we focus in a different way at times. We are very appreciative of your responses and your blogs. Thanks for the same.

Reg,
Nikhil Gurjar
President
Consulting Connoisseurs