Hiring a New HR Leader for a Dead Company

Quick!  You're the CEO of General Motors (is that Joe Biden these days?) and you have an opportunity to bring in a new HR leader for your company.  Let's assume, for a minute, that one of your major owners is not the UAW, and pretend that you want to bring in someone who can do the people/talent biz in a way that is fresh and will bring change you can believe in rock the house.

Pick the profile of the candidate you would bring in:

1.  HR Pro internal to GM, currently residing in the company.

2.  HR Pro external to GM, with no automotive experience.

3.  Candidate internal to GM, with no HR experience.

4.  Candidate external to GM, with no HR experience.

If you said HR Pro internal to GM, turn in your HR Capitalist subscription now.  Wait, I'll pay you to leave.  Let's face it, that's not going to get it done.  It's a hard knock life, and what the GM corpse doesn't need at this point is more of the same.  There are some great HR folks at GM.  What they need at this point in their careers is to work at someplace outside GM.  I'd hire one of them now, because the experience is solid - they just need some room to actually create and innovate, away from the staleness that is UAW ownership.

My take is that the best way to go is always external - get someone outside the company to come in and take a clean look at the people function.  I don't even care if they're currently a HR Pro, just get a smart person with a fresh look and some innovative ways of looking at talent.  STAT.

Unfortunately, GM blinked and promoted someone internally.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss as reported by John Hollon at the Business of Management:

"What can you say about a large, tradition-bound, old-school manufacturing company that decides to shake up its management team by promoting someone with no human resources experience to lead its HR function?

Here’s a bit about Barra’s HR-free career.

Barra, 47, is vice president for global manufacturing engineering and has been with GM since 1980,” according to the Workforce Management story.  “She has served in a number of engineering, manufacturing, management and communications positions and was plant manager for the Detroit Hamtramck assembly center. Barra was appointed executive director of vehicle manufacturing engineering in 2004 and was named to her current position in 2008, the company said in a release.”

The question I keep coming back to about this move is this: Does GM’s decision to promote someone from outside HR into the top people management job reflect out-of-the-box thinking, a big slap at traditional HR, or a little of both?

I’m thinking it is more the former than the latter, but only time will tell if this move makes much sense—and if it’s possible to make meaningful change without a grasp of what makes HR tick."

I agree with what John says, but will add this.  It's more important to go outside for a HR hire at a company this messed up than it is for that hire to have HR experience.  Smart people with a disposition for talent can "get" HR.  An internal hire from a company with this history is sure to continue the status quo on tens, if not hundreds of fronts.

I repeat - smart people can "get" HR.  People who are part of the status quo can't "elevate" HR.

Comments

[Judy Clark]

So sad...says volumes about GM and even more about their view of HR. A real HR Professional ought to be the new CEO's best resource. I wish them well (afterall, I am a GM owner), but I fear my investment is not in steady hands or thinking.

[Bohdan Rohbock]

I'd say they need someone with a sales background in manufuacturing that's not cars and not GM. Make sure they have solid legal support and union experienced HR pros under them to spot snags.

Just make sure the sales person is interested in the HR side and comes from a company that is making a profit.

[Quashan Lockett]

leaders with operations experience make great HR professionals, but promoting someone at this level with no HR experience is a questionable move in my eyes.

twitter: @qlockett

[Kris Dunn]

Bohdan -

I'm interested in hearing more. Why a sales background? I like that too, but interested in your take....

Thanks - KD

[Yuvarajah]

Hi KD,

I was wondering when you would bring this up.

As a full blooded HR with military background, I have lost considerable hope in this lifetime of ever seeing HR gain a "professional" image in the business world. That's why I have began my crusade (more like an assault!)with the regulatory agencies harping on accountability for corporate governance. I even asked them to give me a profile breakdown of HR in PLCs but to no avail. Isn't that a good indicator of how Professional HR is treated and given cognisance at the Executive level. I do not want to sound cynical but I think the large majority of leadership today are still governing in the old age and see HR as rubber stamps and yes men. Should we be surprised to see HR become a scapegoat and dispensible force(home depot).

I would like to share what I had posted in response to John Hollon's article.

I just can't wait for Barclay to tell her side of the story on what and where she failed to deliver her goods. I mean you are talking of a person who had served more than 30 years, 10 of which was at the executive table. That's helluva lot of experience, data,wisdom and evidence.

What I would like to know is what was her scope of responsibilities and authorities were in making influential HR decisions that impacts operations and bottom line results.

This looks like a landmark case to revolutionise the mindset of all "stakeholders" in appreciating and understanding over what Professional HR is trying to impress.

I would like to see Harvard and other notable institutions take up the study to highlight the challenges of HR Role in GM. And, most importantly, I want to know those what those "deep changes in HR" that Kleimbaum claimed and led to ridiculing the HR community.

This case is a window of opportunity for the HR Community to present and argue their case against unfair treatment and undermining HR as a certified profession. The time has come to turn the table in questioning business leadership on the issues of accountability and authority in executing the HR Strategic agenda. It is time to step up the game and assume a proactive stand in auditing and reporting the performance outcome of HR initiatives and programs. Stop playing cupid and Mr/Ms nice guy between line, executive and Employee/Unions. Stop condoning non-compliances and under-performance, even if its from the top gun.

Why does HR have to beg for representation at the Board. If you (Board and Shareholders) want to hear the truth on customers satisfaction index, operational performance, leadership development and corporate governance, without having to listen to lame excuses, make HR your direct report. Anyone care to dispute or debate?.

[Kris Dunn]

Yuvarajah -

I'd be interested to hear the Barclay story as well.

When it comes to your frustrations, I don't share them. I think the best people still get the goods for HR, and those that focus on the global view of HR will always be disappointed in what they see. I get the sense that you're a player, so you probably get results even while you're frustrated.

As for my opinion on why Barclay couldn't have done more, look no further than the UAW, and the cost structure and flexibility contraints that presents...

KD

[Brenda]

Hi - I was in sales and operations for 7 years before moving into HR. I actually went via the OD department and then into a HR generalist background. My experience in operations is invaluable in my HR career now. I have a keen sense for the business and understand what it takes - first hand - to mobilize a team towards a goal. Not that HR pros can't get that, but many of them have never truly run a business with front line numbers they need to meet. All of my HR folks on my team have direct goals and metrics linked to driving sales and creating operational efficiencies. This is still new ground for some.

[klbPHR]

I find it interesting that all of us who started outside of HR all find our previous experience invaluable. Bottom line is when you get it, you get it. Engineering, sales, accounting, marketing - it all makes you more well rounded and provides you with more information to make better decisions.