Evolution of Human Resources Paper Evolution of HR HR has evolved from mainly hiring and paying employees to perform organizational functions to being em

Evolution of Human Resources Paper Evolution of HR

HR has evolved from mainly hiring and paying employees to perform organizational functions to being embedded within the larger system of the organization’s strategy implementation. Today, HR’s focus is more centered on aligning its functions with the organizational strategy, to create and sustain a competitive advantage. This shift in HR has also created a need for HR professionals with a new set of skills and who can act as competent and successful strategic partners. HR professionals also must be skilled in demonstrating their value if they want to become and remain equal partners. It is often difficult for HR to demonstrate their value as a strategic partner, because HR is often described as an intangible asset that is more difficult to quantify and cannot be tracked through traditional accounting methods.

With these thoughts in mind:

BY DAY 3

Post a cohesive and scholarly response based on your readings and research this week that addresses the following:

How has HR’s role as a strategic partner in organizations evolved?
How have metrics contributed to HR’s role as a strategic partner, if at all?
Discuss whether you think HR as a strategic partner is where it should be today. Why or why not? If the latter, discuss how you think HR can become more of a strategic partner.
What do you anticipate HR’s future role will be in organizational strategic planning?
Be specific, and provide examples with references to the literature.
APA Format

Please use attached source and/or a relevant source. What Makes HR a
Strategic Partner?
Edward E. Lawler ¡II and John W. Boudreau,
Center for Effective Organizations. University of Southern California
F
The Strategic Partner Role
The HR function has at least three identifiable roies that it can play. Its longest-running roie
is the delivery of clerical and administrative services, often consisting of satisfying legal
and administrative compliance requirements. During the last several decades HR has been
encouraged to increase its activities in a second role—business partner, in this role, HR is
expected to implement and deliver HR practices and services that support the organization’s
business model and meet the demands of managers and employees.
T
he last 10 years have seen an increasing call for HR to take on a third
roie—strategic partner. In this role HR
is à member of the senior management team
and is directly involved in the major business
decisions of the organization, including the
formation of strategy, the design of the organization and the implementation of the
business model (Lawler, Boudreau &
Mohrman,, 2006). These three roles can also
be thought of as correspotiding to a paradigm
reflecting compliance, services and decisions,
respectively (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007).
executives in 1995, and has continued with
surveys every three years since then.
The case for HR being a strategic partner is
becoming stronger, as it rests on the reality
that human capital and how it is organized
are increasingly pivotal to organization effectiveness. There is ample evidence that how
human capital is recruited, developed, organized and managed has a direct and strong
influence on organizational performance
(Huselid, 1995; Lawler, Mohrman, & Benson, 2001; Combs. Youngmei, Hall, &
Ketchen, 2006). Thus HR leaders can make
important contributions to strategy development and implementation, as well as improve
the quality of decisions related to strategy
and talent.
HR’s Strategic Role
and Activities
It is one thing to say that HR should be a
strategic partner; it is quite another to define
what that looks like and what it takes to
make it happen. In this article we present data
from a continuing study of the role of HR in
large U.S. corporations. The study is a joint
effort of the Human Resource Planning Society (HRPS) and the Center for Effective
Organizations at the University of Southern
California. It began with a survey of HR
The most recent data were collected in 2007.
In 2007, senior HR leaders in 106 large U.S.
corporations completed surveys. A full report
of the data gathered can be found in Lawler
and Boudreau (2009). A major focus of the
study is examining the strategic role of HR,
including whether HR is becoming more of a
strategic business partner, and what determines HR’s role in the strategy process. Here
we present those results.
Our study examines the overall strategic role
of HR, and it also examines specific strategic
activities that HR leaders can engage in,
including such things as defining and choosing
strategy options, designing the organization
structure to support strategy, and evaluating
merger and acquisition opportunities. As we
shall see, the factors associated with HR’s
overall role in strategy often are similar to
those for specific strategic activities, hut in
notable cases there are differences. Certain HR
skills, activities and organization design elements offer unique opportunities for enhanced
contributions in specific strategy areas.
HR’s Overall Role
in Strategy
In our last four surveys, we asked HR executives to describe the strategic role of HR
based on four descriptions. The results are
presented in Exhibit I. They show that HR
does have a roie in strategy but that it is usually not as a full partner. The most common
role is an input role, which most likely means
that HR is asked for data and opinion when
it comes to formulating strategy.
The trend from 1998 to 2007 shows no
increase in HR’s role in strategy. Indeed, the
data show a small decrease from 2004 to
2007 and almost Identical levels In 1998 and
2007. These data clearly suggest that HR is
not making the kinds of progress that numerous consultants and academics often suggest
it should make.
E X H I B I T 1 : HR’S ROLE IN STRATEGY
Rofs in Strategy
No Role
Implementation Role
Input Role
Full Partner
1998
2001
2004
4.2
3,4
2.0
5,7
16.8
49.6
29.4
11.6
12.2
45.9
39.8
17.0
45.3
32.1
43.8
41,1
2007
1. Response Scale: 1 = No Role to 4 = Full Parüier
VOLUME 32/ISSUE 1 — 2009
15
Strategy Activities
EXHIBIT 2 : BUSINESS STRATEGY ACTIVITIES
Another wiiy to determine the evolution of
HR’s strategic role is to e.amine specific
strategy activities that HR can undertake.
Exhibit 2 shows the extent to which HR leaders reported engaging in the six strategy
activities we included in our 2004 and 2007
surveys. There is considerable variation
across these six activities.
Planning for implementation is also a high
activity area. The high ratings given to these
activities suggest that HR Is most active in strategy implementation. When it comes to strategy
development, the ratings are significantly lower,
particularly for new business opportunities.
While one might argue that new business
opportunities is an area that is far away from
HR’s usual role, it is not necessarily the case
that HR should play little or no role here. An
HR function that understands its talent pool
and the capabilities of its organization may
well be able to uncover untapped business
opportunities. For example, IBM and other
organizations have created new businesses
providing consulting and the outsourcing of
HR services, based in part on the capabilities
of their HR organizations.
The results in Exhibit 2 show little change
from 2004 to 2007 in HR strategy activities.
There is a slight tendency for strategy activities to increase, but none of the differences is
statistically significant. This is consistent with
the finding in Exhibit 1. suggesting that HR’s
overall role in strategy has not changed significantly since 1998.
Exhibit 2 also shows the correlations between
HR’s overall role in strategy (the question in
MEAN
|
VOLUME 32/ISSUE 1 — 2009
17
possibility is that HR measurement and analytics may be focused on areas that are not
related to HR’s strategic role, such as the efficiency of HR practices and programs.
Metrics and Analytics
In our survey, we asked HR leaders to consider the nature of their measurement and
analytic systems. We divided the measures into
three categories: efficiency., effectiveness and
impact. Exhibit 4 shows the relationships
among the three categories and HR’s strategic
role. Efficiency measures the relationship
among resources that HR uses, and the programsand practices that itcreates. Effectiveness
measures the relationship between HR programs and their effects on those that receive
them. Impact measures the relationship
between the effects of HR programs and the
pivotal elements of business success.
The pattern of associations suggests that
HR’s strategic role is related to at least one
element in each category. Thus, as with other
corporate staff functions (e.g., finance and
marketing), it appears that a complete measurement model should include elements of
all three categories. When we look at the
EXHIBIT 4 : METRICS AND ANALYTICS
Assess
Metrics and
Analytics
HR’s role in
strategy
Identify
or design
strategy
options
Decide
among the
best strategy
options
Plan the
implementation
of strategy
Design the
organization
structure to
implement
strategy
Identify new
business
opportunities
possible
merger,
acquisition
or divestiture
strategies
.30*’
.26*
.36″
.33”
.20
EFnCIENCY
Measure the financial
efficiency of HR
operations (e.g. costper-hire. time-to-fill,
training costs}?
.34***
Collect metrics that
measure the cost of
providing HR programs
and processes?
.31**
.29**
.31*’
.39* =
.39***
.30**
.34***
Benchmark analytics
and measures against
data from outside
organizations (e.g.
Saratoga, Mercer,
Hewitt, etc.)?
.02
.05
-.02
.12
.16
.08
.10
.18
.33′
.28**
.23*
.41″
.20
EFFECTIVENESS
Use HR dashboards or
scorecard s ?
Measure the specific
effects of HR programs
(such as. learning from
training, motivation
from rewards, validity
of tests, etc.)?
.34***
.41***
.26*
.19
Have the capability to
conduct cost benefit
analyses (also called
utility analyses) of HR
programs?
.12
.28″
.24*
.17
.25*
.24*
.24*
Measure the business
impact of HR programs
and processes?
.29**
.38***
.41***
.36***
.47***
.37***
.43***
Measure the quality
of the talent decisions
made by non-HR
leaders?
.22*
.25*
.26*
.08
.21*
.27**
.21*
Measure the business
impact of high versus
low performance
in jobs?
.30**
.28**
.23*
.12
.19
.33***
.28**
Significance Level: *p < .05 IS .26* PEOPLE & STRATEGY * * ? s .01 """»p < .001 strategy activities shown in Exhibit 4, only the item reflecting the use of benchmarks tails to relate t Purchase answer to see full attachment