HR Timewasters

Just happened to stumble upon an interesting article at http://fistfuloftalent.com about things we do as HR; but of very little or no consequence!

Not sure if all of you would agree to these, but it is indeed thought provoking for a read...

Click here to for the full article

HR - Dumbest Management Concept of the 20th Century

After a long time a real hard hitting view on HR- posted by Geoffrey James on his blog 

Geoffrey blows the whistle on how the situation needing so-called tough decisions (otherwise called downsizing) during bad times was actually the very creation of Management. Geoffrey's criticism is more for top management and their management techniques which have led to such a situation  in the first place.

What makes it even worse is that such management flaws are covered up with harsh measures ( again called downsizing ) - meaning hardworking employees in the middle and lower levels of management face the consequences of flawed actions by top management.

Click here for the entire article on Bnet.com

Something Called Culture - An Interesting Viewpoint from NETFLIX

Culture

View more presentations from Reed Hastings.

The Tale of Two Seas

A Tale Of Two Seas

Sitting in the Geography class in school, I remember how fascinated I was when we were being taught all about the Dead Sea.

As you probably recall, the Dead Sea is really a Lake, not a sea (and as my Geography teacher pointed out, if you understood that, it would guarantee 4 marks in the term paper!)

Its so high in salt content that the human body can float easily. You can almost lie down and read a book! The salt in the Dead Sea is as high as 35% - almost 10 times the normal ocean water. And all that saltiness has meant that there is no life at all in the Dead Sea. No fish. No vegetation. No sea animals. Nothing lives in the Dead sea.

And hence the name: Dead Sea.

While the Dead Sea has remained etched in my memory, I don't seem to recall learning about the Sea of Galilee in my school Geography lesson. So when I heard about the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea and the tale of the two seas - I was intrigued.

Turns out that the Sea of Galilee is just north of the Dead Sea. Both the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea receive their water from river Jordan. And yet, they are very, very different.

Unlike the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee is pretty, resplendent with rich, colorful marine life. There are lots of plants. And lots of fish too. In fact, the sea of Galilee is home to over twenty different types of fishes.

Same region, same source of water, and yet while one sea is full of life, the other is dead. How come?

Here apparently why. The River Jordan flows into the Sea of Galilee and then flows out. The water simply passes through the Sea of Galilee in and then out - and that keeps the Sea healthy and vibrant, teeming with marine life.

But the Dead Sea is so far below the mean sea level, that it has no outlet. The water flows in from the river Jordan, but does not flow out. There are no outlet streams. It is estimated that over 7 million tons of water evaporate from the Dead Sea every day. Leaving it salty. Too full of minerals. And unfit for any marine life.

The Dead Sea takes water from the River Jordan, and holds it. It does not give. Result? No life at all.

Think about it.

Life is not just about getting. It’s about giving. We all need to be a bit like the Sea of Galilee.

We are fortunate to get wealth, knowledge, love and respect. But if we don't learn to give, we could all end up like the Dead Sea. The love and the respect, the wealth and the knowledge could all evaporate. Like the water in the Dead Sea.

If we get the Dead Sea mentality of merely taking in more water, more money, more everything the results can be disastrous.

Good idea to make sure that in the sea of your own life, you have outlets. Many outlets. For love and wealth - and everything else that you get in your life. Make sure you don't just get, you give too.

Open the taps. And you'll open the floodgates to happiness.

Make that a habit. To share. To give.

And experience life. Experience the magic!

- Anonymous

Life, liberty, happiness

Off late I have been thinking of reblogging ( is this a new term? ) and here I am with a new Section dedicated to Books.

And I would like to start on a subtle note on Life, Liberty and Happiness ( heard this somewhere, ha? )

Richard Brodie comes up with a new work of the same name and what a better time to talk about these illusions that we all so agonizingly pursue!

Well, take a look at the book review here and do let me know how the book has changed your Lives.

Will Outsourcing Kill HR?

The Business of Outsourcing

Before we speak about HR Outsourcing , it is essential to know what outsourcing really means and why businesses have embraced the same with open arms.

Outsourcing refers to a process by which an organization subcontracts its work to a third-party service provider

. This work can be done by the parent company itself, but is “outsourced” primarily for certain obvious benefits;

• Cost Optimization 
• Save on Time -  by letting more focus on Core Business Challenges
• Improve Efficiency by outsourcing jobs to specialists.

Work is also outsourced to save time and energy and to improve overall efficiency. Investment consultancy firm McKinsey & Co. has predicted that global outsourcing industry would be worth more than $180 billion by 2010.  - Economy Watch


Hence its not surprising that more organizations are moving towards to an outsourcing model for their non-core functions - resulting in huge volumes of business moving from highcost developed nations to low cost emerging nations.


Now, coming back to our original question "Will Outsourcing Kill HR?" - especially when HR is seen as a non-core function by most organisations?



HR by itself may not see an end with outsourcing  - but there has already been a paradigm shift in the way that organization have started to view HR. HR as a function has become far more complex than what it was a few decades ago when it was considered useful ( but not necessarily as partners) primarily for three functions - 1. Recruitment and 2. Addressing employee concerns ( Industrial Disputes) and 3. Administrators of personnel programmes ( Health and Welfare).



An ever expanding HR function has also meant that a great deal of an organisation's energies is today spent on :

1. Workforce Planning and Talent Acquisition

2. Talent Development through Training / Career Programs/ Performance Management 

3. Talent Engagement



Of the above mentioned areas - a majority of them could be effectively outsourced. For instance through outsourcing the Talent Acquisition process - External Vendors could provide firms with access to a wider and more diversified talent pool - they could also ease the pressure on HR Managers with respect to managing day-today manpower requirements by providing a ready-to-deploy workforce and result in significant cost reduction as well!



Most importantly, Outsourcing would also relive HR personnel of their routine yet time consuming activities and enable them allocate more time to the crucial employee engagement initiatives. Hence, in an organizational perspective it would be ideal for firms to completely outsource their HR functions. However, this is not without its own downside.


In my next post, we would discuss on the Downsides of HR Outsourcing.

Keep Reading....

Culture and Systems - Who Comes First?

Every organisation has a unique way of working - perhaps it reflects the way its people think ( or believe). Over the years these practices solidify with time and become part of the organizational fabric. These time-tested methods of working are followed with a vengeance, with most of them believing that this is the Best way to get things done.

You might be wondering the reason for this prelude. Well, let me explain.

A top executive of a five decade old services company, in an interview confided on how he had miserably failed to run one of his pet initiatives across the company. Though the initiative would have brought many good things to the organisation, most people within his rank detested the need for any such change.

In the absence of any significant support from his own colleagues, the initiative ultimately hit a roadblock and is now cooling its heels in the cold storage.

So, was the Executive wrong in trying to bring such dramatic changes to his company's way of working? Or was it merely a result of poor planning and execution? Or was there a deeper and unseen reason for such protests?