Maybe it’s the horrific flashbacks from one too many re-orgs, but since the conversation on #TChat about splitting HR, I’ve been thinking more about why I don’t think it’s a good idea.
From my vantage point, a split in HR:
Makes HR less nimble – one more layer means getting all the people in the room, or getting all the stakeholders to buy in, even more difficult.
Removes ownership – if you split HR strategy from HR administration, both sides lose their sense of ownership. Those impacting the strategic focus lose sight of what it takes to administer a process, program or imitative. And those administering the process lose sight of why that imitative, program or process exists.
Reduces commitment – when HR is aligned and views itself as one team with one purpose, we gain a high level of commitment. Splitting the function divides that team, and the commitment level, in half.
Creates confusion with clients – especially in big organizations, finding the right person to talk to can be difficult. When you split HR, you’re adding one more layer of confusion to the puzzle. If a client wants to talk to someone in HR, they want to talk to someone in HR…they don’t want to worry about which “side” of HR handles their issue or concern. They just want help.
Like I said, it may be that the flashbacks of being on the other side of too many failed re-orgs are too traumatic, but given the reasons above, it would take a lot of discussion to convince me that splitting HR would benefit the business.
Want to join in on these types of conversations about HR? Join me at TalentCulture’s next #TChat![/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]