Practical Thoughts on Human Resources Management

1

Process and Relationship

Management

HR is based on process and relationship, but relationship management without process takes HR to populism.

Thirty years ago, the human resources department was not prominent and generally performed its duties as a control department. But today, it is a recognized fact that human resources’ role is not limited to a control department that manages costs. It also includes accomplishing healthy growth, ensuring sustainability, and, when necessary, influencing strategy. This recognition became more accurate after the economic crisis, which removed the advantage companies had of hiding inefficient operational costs behind product prices. In short, employee management became a topic companies needed to prioritize.

In the past, due to the importance of cost control, human resources activities were assigned to finance departments. This may not be a valid approach in most organizations as the formal structure, but informally in management’s understanding, it is still recognized as described. When corporations manage human resources in this way, it is not easy to go from a controller mindset to a leader mindset. Human resources was supposed to provide strategy and control at the same time, besides controlling the cost. It is not only hiring and firing; rather, the real duty is to manage the organization’s sustainability. This is the only way for an institution to learn about not only recording and calculating costs but also managing by systemic and sustainable infrastructure.

Sustainability goes with efficiency. This does not mean creating efficiency when it is needed but obtaining continuous efficiency management, leading to an adaptable and agile organizational mindset. Unless healthy growth management is ensured, companies will experience periods of excessive growth and excessive downsizing. Because of the tendency to invest and spend money during any growth process period, the risk of making a mistake is also high. Human resources should check whether the culture of growth is strong and well established. If it is not—meaning the question of why is not answered and growth plans are detached from each other due to lack of a common strategy—the system will pull down the desire for growth. I will not speak about this topic too much, since the number of the companies that perform actual strategic planning is low. However, if it is applied, human resources should definitely take a guiding role in the process.

A human resources manager seeking a long-term solution with an infrastructure configuration in its base should find the answers to the following questions:

• Does the company have a written personnel policy? Are the rights and the use of these rights defined and available in the system?

• Are operational processes defined and well known to employees?

• As a department, can human resources contribute to financial and managerial reporting?

• Does the human resources department really contribute to the managers’ decision-making?

• Does the organizational structure depend on written rules, or is it done randomly?

• Is there any organizational succession plan that controls assignments?

• Are recruitment and development tasks managed in a process?

• Are wages and vested benefits under control and managed on a scale that reflects a value-added basis and respects organizational levels?

• Does the human resources manager attend the company’s management board meetings?

If you answered negatively to most of these questions, it will be hard for you to perform human resources tasks in your company lest you appear cute to your upper manager, your employees, or other managers. The work you do will vary according to each person or department. It will be unclear what is right and what is wrong. Satisfaction will be temporary, and creating long-term policies will be hard. In the end, human resources will automatically become a registry and application center.

Therefore, creating human resources policies must be your choice. It is important to find out the department’s reason for existing and to developing policies accordingly. For example, although human resources may have fundamentally the same reason for existing in a production company and in a corporation, its purpose varies according to company strategy. First, top management must be convinced about these policies and reasons. It is not only the general manager whom you need to convince. You also must convince the managers who occupy same level as you. In some organizations, it is even important to work with the informal general manager, who has a big influence on other managers and the organization. It is vital that the system accepts the change. Therefore, human resources should also understand the informal structure of the company to keep policies alive and active.

After identifying the basic human resources personnel management rules, ethical code, and discipline rules for at least three to four years, these rules should be applied without any exception to ensure compliance. However, health checks are important to see if there is a need for minor changes. To do that, human resources must work with the help of employees and managers. This can happen through workshops, info lines, or visits to and discussions with the employees. Once the base has been established, human resources policies should cover all the department’s subprocesses. We can mainly sort these as follows:

• Recruitment

• Placement

• Performance

• Promotion and assignment

• Management of development activities

• Organizational management

• Wage and vested benefits management

• Regulations/ethical work and how to apply

• Travel type and expense management

These rules must always be used as a reference when the company acts on any human resources processes—without any exception, as said. The most important aspect of this is to have a strong human resources department that protects the rules and rejects any contrary applications. Even if the internal client is right in his or her discourses, the application must be kept and maintained as it is. The opposed position from the employees to aply the rules in their favor or management to manage as they wish so both benefits from their perspective individually. For sure, this is easier for employees and management, but it is a danger to the corporation. It is an attempt to change or stretch the rules instead of obeying them.

I had an interesting discussion in one of my jobs, just after I started working. Before my start, the human resources department was ranked lower than other departments, and it was used per their needs and how they wished at any stage of the process. After hearing about the title arrangement and the title of human resources, I said to the general manager, It is clear what you are saying by keeping the human resources title at the bottom. You are saying, ‘I don’t care about this job.’ If you want me and the company to be successful, you should give me the highest title that you can give. Otherwise, there is no need for me to be here. Another employee would be more helpful to you.

It was important to make people believe human resources is to be taken seriously, and that, this time, change is going to happen.

My next conversation with the general manager occurred two months later, during the salary increase period. One of the department managers was getting along well with the general manager. He always found a way to obtain privileges and keep his department’s employees one step ahead and with extra benefits. It was an unfair situation, as we were not able to offer extra benefits for everyone. I said, No, you have a limit, and that is the maximum increase we can make. We had an argument, but I persisted, and we ended our call without resolution.

The next day, when the general manager saw me, he told me, We may offer something extra for that department.

Then I asked, Would you like to keep this company as your company or make it a corporate one?

This topic never came up again. After that, whenever this person wanted something extra, he came to the human resources department to ask for it. I acted tough in this case because it is important from the beginning to show that human resources is as important as other departments, and its contribution may be even higher. Later, this manager and I became friends.

2

Balance Is Hard Work

HR is the most unpopular department because it always touches the hygiene part of Maslow. Whereas motivators are possessed by managers. Keeping balance is hard work.

Research shows that human resources is one of the least popular departments in a company. This is because it deals mostly with matters which touch basic needs (such as physical needs, sense of belonging, and sense of security), ranked at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy. Human resources departments’ main duties—including recruitment, dismissal, salary, constitution of benefits, and performance management—are woven directly into employee pockets. It is unlikely that an employee and a manager will both have a positive perception of these needs. I have never experienced managers or employees saying their salaries or benefits are where they should be. They always benchmark against their peers or even their bosses and say, If this guy is making this much, I have to make more. Increasing salary is not enough to change the perception of human resources. A company may have the best salary and benefit structure, but unless you support these by meeting employees’ emotional and motivational needs, the perception of human resources will always be the same.

When you Google, Why do we hate human resources? you find more than 2,600,000 hits (as of 19/4/2018). This shows us that people have too many concerns about human resources. The human resources department should continuously ask itself, How can we improve our perception? The first thing to do is to focus on the motivational factors of the Maslow hierarchy and try to create balance in a way that is fair and understood by all. The theory says that if a company does not treat physical, security, and belonging needs fairly, improvements on motivational factors—such as respect, recognition, and self-actualization—do not yield the explosive results. I believe this is not entirely true. My experience shows me that the way to reduce the negative impact of de-motivating factors is to recognize and keep open the path of empathy and respect.

Simply put, HR should touch the heart of the people by systematically helping them understand their potential and how much they are cared for. To do this, HR applications and processes should be customer focused (meaning employee focused) and also segmented per employee cluster—just like we segregate our customers.

Having a single process for a diversified population is a major issue in an environment where we have limited sources and different generations. Some very basic products we use include bonuses, sales incentives, overtime payment, and home office work, but these benefits are mostly regulated by law.

In one company I worked for, we came up with the idea to measure the effectiveness of our HR products—gauging whether they created value to the employee, company, or even the community. We decided to base our findings on Maslow’s hierarchy theory. We prepared questions with a global survey company to understand where each employee placed himself or herself on the hierarchy. Then we took these questions and measured motivation and engagement using the same principles. The ultimate purpose, as mentioned, was to understand whether HR services was creating value for employees by touching the heart of the problem or whether time and energy were being wasted. The results were fascinating.

The first pilots we ran showed us that employees could be grouped into four clusters:

Locomotive: These employees are the most satisfied and ready to go. They are happy to work in the company, friendly to the environment, and high achievers. We called them locomotives, or drivers of performance. They were not necessarily high but they were surely top-level performers. They marked Maslow motivators such as career development and involvement in projects as the most important areas. Salary was not mentioned as a top-level issue. You can see in the table that they are positioned in the upper-right cluster. Satisfaction and willingness among these employees were determined as high.

Potential: Employees falling into this area have the willingness and enthusiasm to be part of the company. However, their level of satisfaction is low due to several reasons. They are either doing the wrong job, their superior may be creating an environment that is not suitable for them, or there may be other similar reasons. Because of this, they tend to list hygiene factors as motivators—level of salary, benefits, physical work environment, etc. In a nutshell, their level of satisfaction is low, but their willingness is high. These employees should be considered offered different programs to lead them towards the locomotive cluster.

Indecisive: These employees haven’t decided how to feel about the company. Accordingly, they cannot clearly define their expectations from the company. They are satisfied with the things they possess and somehow perform fairly. They do things they are told to do. However, their hunger to do more is low; therefore they fail to engage with the team, the work, or the company. Special programs are needed to lead them toward a motivating environment, namely the locomotive cluster. In short, they are satisfied, but their willingness is low.

Hostage: They are not satisfied with the company. They might even be against the company. They do not want to do more, and would often even