Human Resources: Getting to the Leadership Table

Thirty years ago when I first began my Human Resources career the major challenge facing HR professionals was their interest and often inability to be offered a seat at the "leadership table." Thirty years have transpired and I continue to see many of my professional HR colleagues struggling to find a suitable solution.

At first blush there should be no difficulty. HR is the steward of an organization's most important assets. The ability to have the right employees focused on the most important work within an environment that provides personal satisfaction and creates a high return on investment should be the goals of every senior leader. Since then, countless authors have written books and articles extolling the virtues of a more strategic Human Resources function. Executives chime in agreement. So why is pulling up a chair at the leadership table such a difficult challenge?

After working with and for Human Resource professionals for all of these years I developed several insights which may be helpful for you to make the transition. Making the shift from staff personnel to a trusted advisor can be a challenging journey yet one that brings higher levels of personal satisfaction and value to the organizations and employees we serve. Most importantly, there are several skills that can be mastered to facilitate the transition.

A paradox occurs when there appear to be at least two options that appear to be mutually exclusive. But pick either option, and unintended consequences occur. In other words, "You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't" Role paradoxes universally occur with those who have similar job responsibilities. Yet few professionals are aware that they are experienced by everyone with the same position for at least two reasons: First, we view our issues as problems to be solved and therefore feel personal inadequacy when we are unable to succeed. Second, the inability to find the right "solution" for professionals who have been rewarded for solving problems, leaves people with a personal sense of inadequacy. Unfortunately, Human Resource positions are fraught with paradoxes. The opportunity to come to the table is based on your ability to navigate through several predictable paradoxes.

The purpose of this article is to make explicit those paradoxes that are likely keeping you up at night and preventing you from having the influence you seek. We start by defining four universal HR paradoxes.

Compliance focus vs. expedience

At its core, the Human Resources Department provides three critical functions for the organization. It must ensure comprehensive compliance to government regulations and corporate guidelines. Doing so is necessary to avoid costly legal battles. The Human Resources Department itself creates a number of policies and procedures which must be followed to ensure employee perceptions of equal and fair treatment. Most HR professionals are acutely aware of the significant potential ramifications of being out of compliance and feel personally responsible for the protection of the organization. Consequently, many HR professionals go to great lengths to avoid potential liabilities.

Second, the clients of the Human Resources function are typically under great pressure to get things done. They have people-related needs that they wish to accomplish in an expeditious manner. They may not feel they have the "luxury" of time to follow prescribed policies and procedures and see little harm in circumventing them. They may see the processes required by the Human Resources department as requiring extra hoops which offer little value. In this scenario the Human Resources department can be seen as an unnecessary administrative deterrent that reduces efficiency. Thus HR is viewed as being a disinterested business partner.

The Human Resources department is also responsible to ensure that the organization has developed the strategic capabilities of its people to meet the challenges that lie ahead. Having the right people, with the right skills working within an organization structure that facilitates communication across organization silos who are motivated to deliver their best is foundational for organization success.

These three responsibilities often throw Human Resources professionals in a dilemma. If they fail to uphold the required policies and procedures they will be considered by their superiors as being inept; if they only follow them, then they will be perceived by their internal clients as uncaring about the business needs. If they focus only on the short term they may develop systems that are irrelevant. If they only focus on the longer term, they may be seen as callous. The HR professional feels they need to choose between doing what my boss expects or relaxing some of the rules and doing what my clients expect. Do they do what might be right for their own department or that of the client organization?

The people vs. the business

The nomenclature of the function itself suggests that HR is to be the protector of the people-the often stated most valuable resource of the organization. Consequently the expectation exists that HR will promote those policies and practices that are best for individuals. However there are also larger business issues which demand actions which are not perceived in the immediate best interests of employees.

Human resources may perceive that it has to make a choice and once it does the reputation of the function's brand will be impacted. If the decision is to focus on the people, then others will perceive the organization as uninterested in the "real" business. If it favors on the needs of the employees, then it will be seen by them as a weak business partner.

Which side?

HR personnel are routinely asked to intervene in difficult inter-personal circumstances. Often the issues occur between levels of management-a boss to a subordinate. Often a high performer who adds significant value to the organization performs work in a manner unpleasant to others. Sometimes it's a senior leader's behavior that may be perceived by others as being offensive. After completing the fact-finding process, the HR person is then expected to take the appropriate actions to ameliorate the situation.

Sometimes this work is easy and yields a satisfactory conclusion. Typically this work is fraught with issues. Imagine for example that the fact-finding concludes that despite the senior leader's business strong business acumen, his/her interpersonal style creates fear throughout the ranks which limits the organization's ability to act. The senior leader's subordinates have come to the Human Resources department with the expectation that effective action will be taken.

If the HR professional confronts the senior leader, he/she risks alienation from that person and perhaps secure employment. The temptation may be to allow the status quo to continue. The subordinate leaders may then see the HR person as being ineffective. Unattended, the impact could be deleterious to the organization's longer-term health.

Confidentiality vs. openness

People assume that information shared with the Human Resources professional will be conducted in a manner that protects the information that is shared. It is a necessary precondition to encourage people to come forth with issues so that they can be addressed by someone inside the organization. This is a crucial function. If HR professionals violate the compact, their reputation and future effectiveness will be limited.

The sharing of this information can place the Human Resources person in a dilemma. If the information is shared, it violates a fundamental human trust. If it is not shared others may continue to suffer consequences. When others learn the information shared and not acted upon, the HR person's reputation might be tarnished.

How to navigate the paradoxes?

Balancing paradoxes requires different action than solving problems. Here is a quick overview to address them.

Step 1.

The first task if for HR personnel to identify the paradoxes they face and realize that they do not represent personal failing or that the grass may be greener at another organization. These paradoxes are universally experienced to some degree by all Human Resources personnel.

Step 2.

Define the paradoxes that are most impacting your performance and sense of well being. Draw a line and put the two ends of the paradox on either side. Put an X on the continuum that is characteristic of your response to these situations.

Step 3.

Decide what actions you can take to provide better balance between the two paradoxes...what do you need to do more of/less of to achieve a better balance...even if it is uncomfortable for you.

Getting the seat at the table

Facing these dilemmas is the job. At no point in my career...neither during my formal academic training nor during my job experience did anyone describe my responsibilities in this fashion. Knowing this information would have been helpful to reduce some of my personal anxieties as well as prescribe a more effective course of action that would have made me a more effective Human Resource professional.

I actually didn't comprehend the pervasiveness of the challenges until I learned to distinguish problems from paradoxes. My newly acquired language and tools opened my eyes to new possibilities. Without this different way of thinking, I would be stuck in the past.

Human Resource professionals are not the only ones who face paradoxes. The organization and the people who work inside them face a myriad of paradoxes. The concept of paradox is but one of a number of concepts that could improve the ability of the Human Resources professionals to triangulate between the strategy of the organization, interfacing with senior leadership, and delivering more effective Human Resource services. The strategic value of the function can increase significantly by offering new language and tools to help people at all organizational levels improve communication, decision-making, and execution. Bringing these strategic, collaborative, and leadership tools to the table