Human Resources - a necessary evil?
People have been asking me if I have a view on the remarks made by Luke Johnson in the Financial Times over a week ago. He described human resources management as a "necessary evil" among other things.
I suppose his gratuitous one-sided views filled a few column inches and drew some praise and criticism in equal measure to the FT web site. It usually has that effect when you say something controversial. But it was a bit silly to use the kind of language that, if you were of a mind, you could apply to all kinds of business functions.
You could say that entrepreneurs were a necessary evil. The world might be a lot more pleasant without some of the misfits that start businesses. You could say employees were a necessary evil. Who wants to experience the pain of employing someone? Then you might have a rant about government, taxation or benefits culture and you could go on in the same ridiculous vein to moan about every difficult aspect of your business.
The problem with making things or providing services is that it involves work, often more work than can be achieved by a single individual. Once people are employed collectively in large numbers there is a need to administer a whole bundle of things: recruitment, pay, holidays, sickness, training, working conditions, health and safety, work space, equipment, discipline, employment law. The list gets longer. Entrepreneurs are not very good at this.
I can see why people such as Mr Johnson grow frustrated. But the answer is not to shoot the administrator. What really saddened me about this attack is that it is given house room in a newspaper that prides itself on providing balanced argument.
Mervyn Davies, chairman of Standard Chartered bank last week described the comments as "pathetic". "The guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The reality is that we're in a people industry where talent is an increasingly scarce commodity," he said.
I really do think there needs to be a debate about the role of HRM and its relationship with other management disciplines. But I don't plan to get my information from Mr Johnson's personal dragon's den. If anyone is looking for my support for this kind of narrow rant I will say no more than the TV entrepreneurs: "I'm out."
I suppose his gratuitous one-sided views filled a few column inches and drew some praise and criticism in equal measure to the FT web site. It usually has that effect when you say something controversial. But it was a bit silly to use the kind of language that, if you were of a mind, you could apply to all kinds of business functions.
You could say that entrepreneurs were a necessary evil. The world might be a lot more pleasant without some of the misfits that start businesses. You could say employees were a necessary evil. Who wants to experience the pain of employing someone? Then you might have a rant about government, taxation or benefits culture and you could go on in the same ridiculous vein to moan about every difficult aspect of your business.
The problem with making things or providing services is that it involves work, often more work than can be achieved by a single individual. Once people are employed collectively in large numbers there is a need to administer a whole bundle of things: recruitment, pay, holidays, sickness, training, working conditions, health and safety, work space, equipment, discipline, employment law. The list gets longer. Entrepreneurs are not very good at this.
I can see why people such as Mr Johnson grow frustrated. But the answer is not to shoot the administrator. What really saddened me about this attack is that it is given house room in a newspaper that prides itself on providing balanced argument.
Mervyn Davies, chairman of Standard Chartered bank last week described the comments as "pathetic". "The guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The reality is that we're in a people industry where talent is an increasingly scarce commodity," he said.
I really do think there needs to be a debate about the role of HRM and its relationship with other management disciplines. But I don't plan to get my information from Mr Johnson's personal dragon's den. If anyone is looking for my support for this kind of narrow rant I will say no more than the TV entrepreneurs: "I'm out."
Labels: dragon's den, entrepreneurs, Financial Times, human resources, Luke Johnson, Mervy Davies, Standard Chartered Bank
posted by Richard Donkin at
1:25 PM
1 Comments:
Interesting for me this article; the first question which came to my mind was:'what problems did this guy encountered that made him think so passionatelly negative on HR?' Is possible to have here the proof of his dissapointment: he was expecting something and HR reality showed him something else. Could this be the reason that he is he so angry with HR?'It looks more like he dors not have a problem with the function of HR, but more with the people who represent HR in his environment....I am soo curious to find out what feelings and fact made him write this article.....
Post a Comment
<< Home