My 2 cents: SHRM bashing has become en vogue on some blogs, but to their benefit the PHR and SPHR certifications are an honest attempt to address this very issue; with two levels of certifications for the line-level practitioner and SVP.

Saying, "don't stink" is always good advice, but raising the bar through recognized certifications and higher minimum qualifications for HR professionals is the only actionable way to make that happen. Otherwise, any college drop-out who "doesn't like math" and is "good with people" will believe that HR is the job for them.

Hi Kris,

I did wonder about this myself. Particularly in some of my other challenges – for example I justify the fact that HR people often prefer talk to action by talking about the complex issues they need to tackle. Well, I know that the things a lot of HR people deal with are all fairly straight forward, or at least obey the laws of cause and effect. So this point at least has limited application.

But I don’t think this is just a seniority thing. It’s true that I do a lot of strategic work – but I do some more traditional HR stuff too. And this tends to involve working with various members, at different levels, within an HR team. Even the strategic stuff tends to involve other people than the HRD / VP.

And I agree with you, I don’t think it can be a UK thing, particularly as 1) a lot of my work is outside the UK, and 2) I think most UK HR bloggers would agree with you and Deb (am I right, Scott, Rick?).

So I think it’s more about the type of company that tends to ask me in. These tend to see HR as a strategic enabler rather than simply a support function – and they ask me in because they know this is my perspective too. And it’s in these companies therefore, that although I may meet HR people who are clearly still on a journey to becoming more strategic, I don’t meet the party organiser type any more.

So, I’d simply say there are some organisations where HR isn’t stinky. And these, not too surprisingly, tend to be some of the HR-focused. The rest, you’ve persuaded me, still have a way to go.

Thanks to all of you for this great conversation. I myself am a young HR manager and was until this week in a large manufacturing plant (~700) with a team of 2 much more comfortable with the "party planning" aspect of the HR role (and that of correcting policy violations) than that of the how does HR contribute and solve bottom-line issues, such as quality sustainability and long term retention of the "good" employees. It's good to know that those of you with a little more experience in the HR management tracks see the struggles that some of us "in the trenches" do.

As for me, I've been fortunate enough that it seems people are noticing my attempts to add value to the organization (even without all the financial lingo) by participating on quality teams and synergy/best practice activities. Now if we can just get that "talent management" piece working, we can be running with all cylinders.

Thanks, Kris, Deb and Jon for paving the way for those of us still learning!

Like Amy, I don't work in that HR world but have to agree that I've seen many that do. Ulrich (one of my gurus) makes the point which Hammonds' in his article "Why We Hate HR" fails to mention - "...effective (workforce)strategy execution requires a partnership between leaders, the worforce and the firm's HR function". When I'm chosing who to work for I make my decision based on how well I perceive the CEO and leadership team to get that point, ie to get that workforce success is a shared accountability, and if managed in that way, will be a source of competitive advantage. That takes managerial courage at all levels, including the HR profession, but certainly not limited to that function - I'm still amazed by how slow some execs are to make the tough calls around people, often to the detriment of their own careers and to the detriment of the business.
I know that my ability to make an impact in the lead people role is influenced by who I work for (and I would never report to the finance guy) and whether or not they view workforce as a strategic differentiator. That often starts with a personal shift at the leadership level, and I have the accountability for providing the evidence of the strong link between people and org'l performance to support that shift. It also takes the CEO raising the bar in terms of what they expect from the lead HR role - you get what you tolerate, after all.

By the way - a general criticism of HR Conferences: wouldn't it be great to see those that run HR conferences adopt the same partnership approach to the way they both structure and run these forums. I'm not that interested in hearing from so-called HR gurus, many of whom seem to be on more of a "personal profile raising" tour (just ask some of the business people working within coys where they claim to have had enormous success); I want to hear from those that are the other half of the partnership - I want to hear from the C level both on what they're looking for (raise the bar) and talking to the impact that a strategically run people function brings to their businesses. The only conference that I've attended that does this is the Human Synergistics conferences (in ANZ). I'd encourage you to take a look at some of the case studies on their website for evidence of how a strategic approach to managing people through a specific focus on cultural factors has impacted the bottom line. Nothing "fluffy" about that!