This post is a link to Lucy Adams' article titled Kissing goodbye to traditional Ulrich - Next Generation HR Organisation Design.
This enjoyable read takes the core elements of the Ulrich model then explores and projects them against current HR trends and observations.
What I particularly like about this post is that apart from being bit a bit tongue in cheek, it's also slightly controversial. There are a number of elements I agree with such as the argument HR advisory work needs to be more than a transnational service.
It's easy to answer a technical question, push out a contract or read out a policy paragraph, however it's not until an HR Advisor considers these items in the context of the people, culture and organisation they are actually value adding. I believe managers and staff often come to HR for advice because they need a trusted and informed or different perspective beyond the obvious - if it was obvious they probably wouldn't be calling.
Other items I'd like to challenge such as when Lucy states that "But most critically, we forgot the fact that when a line manager is asking about a policy - they are not actually asking about a policy - but how to get round it!". For me good policies are about best a practice framework for presumed situations and are built upon justifiable fundamentals, aligned with an organisations culture (and legislature where relevant). Perhaps Lucy was just making a generalisation of a few, however I would argue that her statement a surface level assessment. In my experience, most of the time managers of the disposition that Lucy describes don't really just seek to get around policies. Rather they either have a conceptual disagreement with what the policy is trying to achieve or the policy itself is a troubled answer to the unique situation at hand. One then has to ask, is the policy really meeting its purpose? It's rare that I've come across a manager that doesn't genuinely have the interests of the organisation at heart - the goal often remains the same, it's the perspectives, philosophies and values that change.
That being said however I am aligned on Lucy's comment on trust:
...any of us who have had to draft interminable employment policies recognise that this comes at a cost – to our capacity to focus on building the capabilities of line managers. I am often brought in to provide fresh challenge and ideas for HR teams. Whilst they like the innovation, they equally are concerned about their ability to deliver as their managers “wouldn’t do it”. They may be right but this means we are stuck in this vicious cycle where - we don’t trust managers to manage - we therefore produce rules and processes that make them do it - we spend our time enforcing and monitoring the process to make sure they have – which means we don’t have the time to develop their capability – so we don’t trust them to manage – and so on ….
Some of the most enjoyable HR memories I have is where a manager who I once worked closely with develops new levels of confidence and capabilities due to our joint learnings and experiences. It's important to remember we hire managers to manage, sometimes this can get lost in the noise of a busy HR practitioners' schedule or desire to craft the perfect policy.
