Comments on: Don’t Count on HR to drive the change!

By: Barney Olson

Barney Olson — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:57:00 +0000

'A DISSERVICE TO READERS'

Luc GALOPPIN is certainly entitled to have an opinion about whether the HR function can serve as a change agent for an organization ("Forget Dave Ulrich: HR Doesn't Drive Organizational Change," workforce.com/change-agent); however, when that opinion comes across as poorly developed and supported, the editors of Workforce Management are doing a disservice to readers by publishing it.

What is Luc's basis for suggesting that any of the "basic processes of HR" have the goals that he lists? Then, Luc contradicts himself by stating that HR's role is to lead the refreezing stage of change. If refreezing is one of the key phases of change and HR leads that phase, then how is HR not functioning as a change agent? Logical flaws like this lead me to dismiss any author's argument.

I know these pieces are short and not meant to be academic research papers, but Luc's article really lacked significant value and logic, especially in light of overwhelming anecdotal evidence, much of which has been published in Workforce Management, that suggests otherwise-that suggests that HR does, in fact, play a key role in implementing and managing change for many leading organizations.

Generally speaking, I think Workforce Management publishes relevant, practical articles about current topics of interest to HR professionals. However, in this case I think you missed exercising the required editorial judgment to reject Luc's article for the reasons I cited above.

Barney Olson

Associate consultant

Personnel Decisions International

Minneapolis

By: Barney Olson

Barney Olson — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:57:00 +0000

‘A DISSERVICE TO READERS’Luc GALOPPIN is certainly entitled to have an opinion about whether the HR function can serve as a change agent for an organization (“Forget Dave Ulrich: HR Doesn’t Drive Organizational Change,” workforce.com/change-agent); however, when that opinion comes across as poorly developed and supported, the editors of Workforce Management are doing a disservice to readers by publishing it.What is Luc’s basis for suggesting that any of the “basic processes of HR” have the goals that he lists? Then, Luc contradicts himself by stating that HR’s role is to lead the refreezing stage of change. If refreezing is one of the key phases of change and HR leads that phase, then how is HR not functioning as a change agent? Logical flaws like this lead me to dismiss any author’s argument.I know these pieces are short and not meant to be academic research papers, but Luc’s article really lacked significant value and logic, especially in light of overwhelming anecdotal evidence, much of which has been published in Workforce Management, that suggests otherwise-that suggests that HR does, in fact, play a key role in implementing and managing change for many leading organizations.Generally speaking, I think Workforce Management publishes relevant, practical articles about current topics of interest to HR professionals. However, in this case I think you missed exercising the required editorial judgment to reject Luc’s article for the reasons I cited above.Barney OlsonAssociate consultantPersonnel Decisions InternationalMinneapolis

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:27:00 +0000

I agree with Luc in that HR is a key strength in stabilizing the organization and ensuring internalization of organizational changes. However, I think he fails to recognize the role HR plays in creating initial conditions for changes to occur, such as hiring people with a completely different set of skills, design inovative compensation strategies to attract and reward a different level of performance or develop a T&D strategy to dramatically change employee focus from cost efficiency to customer service, for example. Not all HR teams are apt to fulfill all these roles but HR professionals have the same opportunities to drive organizational changes as any other professionals in any other functions. Rosa.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:27:00 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:31:00 +0000

Luc, if you stated “Don’t count on HR to drive all changes!” I could agree with you. Clearly there are changes HR should not drive (IT, Technical Processes, etc). Just as clearly to me there are some changes HR can and likely should drive (people related systems and processes, etc.). Life, and business, is rarely a case of black & white statements. Jerry

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:31:00 +0000

By: astha

astha — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:15:00 +0000

Luc's post triggered a rant of my own about HR

While I agree with him that in the majority of cases HR does serve as an inertial force maintaining status quo- I also think that this is a remnant of the old "HR=admin" thinking.

As talent becomes central to success, there is no reason to believe that the function can and will not evolve into a vanguard of change.

I would also like to draw attention to the Model of Continuous Change, which appears to be more suited to the business realities of today- as compared to the classic three phase Lewinian Model.

More in the post.

By: astha

astha — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:15:00 +0000

Luc's post triggered a rant of my own about HRWhile I agree with him that in the majority of cases HR does serve as an inertial force maintaining status quo- I also think that this is a remnant of the old "HR=admin" thinking.As talent becomes central to success, there is no reason to believe that the function can and will not evolve into a vanguard of change.I would also like to draw attention to the Model of Continuous Change, which appears to be more suited to the business realities of today- as compared to the classic three phase Lewinian Model.More in the post.