Why does a dog need a fifth leg? & A pervasively missing element in the organizational structure

Part 1. Sedition or why does a dog need a fifth leg?

We will talk about an artificial element of the organizational structure that is superfluous for the vast majority of organizations, from my point of view, which, by taking away functions from other elements, worsens the work of the entire organization.

May HR people who are good by nature forgive me; the fifth leg in the vast majority of organizations is HR.

The very concept of HR, human resource, is outdated. Now we can talk about human resources only outside the organization – as a source that is the entire working population. Employees, who make up the flesh and spirit of the organization, cannot be a resource. The resource was slaves in past centuries. If employees are treated as a “resource,” then what kind of declared teamwork and mutual respect can we talk about? Or about understanding the company's goals? About loyalty and diligence?

Since there is a “resource”, then there must be someone who manages this “resource”. Solving this non-existent problem, they came up with the position of HR manager. There's just a catch – the HR manager cannot manage since the employees are not under his command.

Managers are happy – the most difficult things in their work (communication with subordinates, their motivation, conflict resolution and other inseparable functions of employee management) are now “transferred” to HR. But wait, who did these leaders become then? Certainly not managers, since they have abdicated the main function of managing employees (including hiring them). And they became “bosses”, giving orders for the processes…

The problem is that the company’s performance deteriorates sharply and its human capital suffers. The manager is not particularly interested in reducing staff turnover – the HR manager will find new ones for him. He gets paid for this, and even his KPI is based on the percentage of vacancies filled!

Why should a manager delve into the reasons for turnover (it is quite likely to find his behavior there)?

The employees were also left “without an owner.” In the case of any important issues such as remuneration and the like, managers will nod to HR, and HR to managers. The responsibility of managers to employees and especially to the General Director is being eroded.

The sad thing is that at the moment, from all the HR managers with whom I had the opportunity to communicate (and from the TOP), I hear the formulation of the main task of HR – “attracting, hiring and retaining employees.” On RBC.Trends, for example, this is how it is formulated in the description of the profession. The worst thing here is “retention”. As if we are talking about a prison and prisoners.

But let's imagine that HR disappeared from the organizational structure. All HR responsibilities are returned to where they were taken from. For example:

Search for personnel – transfer to specialized recruitment agencies / or create an account on hh.ru or superjob.ru and organize access to it for managers. At the same time, managers will see the labor market with their own eyes.
Hiring personnel – managers. Only they can correctly assess whether an applicant is suitable or not. As well as answering his questions. And all job profiles, job applications, and the like contain the most general requirements that do not reveal the nuances that are revealed during interviews.
Adaptation – no one can do it better than a leader. And this is his direct responsibility – not to leave the newcomer alone with the work. Again, how will the manager evaluate the completion of the probationary period if he does not see how the newcomer adapts (will he fit into the corporate culture)?
Motivation is again the direct responsibility of the leader. Only he knows what to motivate and how, based on planned and unplanned situations. HR does not understand the specific functionality of employees – its option will always be “for everyone and about nothing.” (The fact that most managers do not know motivation theories is a “blue ocean” for the HR business).
Education, seminars, etc. – who else but the manager (he is responsible for the results?) should monitor the level of his subordinates and promptly organize advanced training? He has all the authority and knowledge for this – to select the right seminars, invite a training specialist and explain what is required from the process.

HR in this case (as in the previous ones) is a link in a dead telephone line. The manager must explain it to him, and he will communicate with training specialists. They will ask questions – he will take them back to the manager. And so on many times until (and the next time immediately) the manager waves his hand, “Do as you know.”

Assessment and certification is perhaps the greatest evil that needs to be eradicated. I recommend reading Deming. Is the employee unable to cope? This means the manager made a mistake during hiring/onboarding. He needs to correct his mistake – either additional training, or transfer the employee to another position, or fire him and start looking for a new one. Understanding this will lead to better selection at the entrance, attention to the employee in the process. The consequence will be reduced turnover and increased efficiency.
The staffing table and remuneration system are the joint work of managers and an economist.

We can go on and on – the topic is big. Therefore, here we only scratch the surface—to present the idea itself.

The HR service remains within the structure of the organization – it has its own classic responsibilities for document management, control of labor legislation, and interaction with the labor inspectorate.

Summary: the exclusion of HR from the organizational structure will require managers at all levels to change their key function from “managing processes through employees” to “managing employees in processes” – that is, to direct management. This will increase the interaction and responsibility of all participants and will lead to increased efficiency of the organization. Under one condition – managers will have to learn management theory.

Where should HR managers go in this case? There are many options: specialists in recruitment agencies, consultants on theories of motivation and corporate culture, specialists in effective interaction (more on this later).

Part 2. The obvious – the incredible, or the universally missing element in the organizational structure

Let us consider the organization as a social entity consisting of employees and their interactions. The advantage of an organization over individual labor (for example, a shoe factory versus a shoemaker) lies in the synergistic effect that arises from the interaction of employees with different specializations.

That is why the topics of team building, effective interaction between different departments, coordination of actions, all kinds of coordination and approval of regulations, budgets and rules in groups and at meetings are so popular among managers.

The higher the quality of this interaction, the stronger the effect. What if the interaction is counterproductive? What if the discussion goes sideways, gets personal, or is unconstructive due to ignorance of discussion techniques? Imagine that we have the opportunity to measure the level of desire for interaction of its participants before and after each meeting. I would imagine that we would often see a decline in this indicator after a meeting for all sorts of reasons – from resentment for not accepting an idea to wasting time due to useless discussions. And sometimes the irreparable happens – in the heat of an argument, emotional transitions to personalities. All this seriously reduces the effectiveness of the organization and its decisions.

You can work effectively according to the decisions made, but you must agree that working according to the effective decisions made is much more pleasant, both in terms of property and motivation.

Example – you can dig a hole with a shovel, but effectively use an excavator. Or you can find an effective solution and then there will be no need to dig a hole.

It is this principle on the part of the organization that is embedded in the high salaries of top management – effective decisions on the system as a whole are more important than the effective work of its individual element.

The real view of the organization is reflected in the organizational structure. Typically, it has commercial and financial directors, technologists, engineers, production and sales managers, and the list goes on, who are involved in the effective management of their part of the assets (effective work) in the overall activities of the enterprise. But there is not a single position that would increase the efficiency of interaction between these individuals when developing decisions.

Effective Communication Specialist.

Why is it not in the structures of enterprises? It can play three important roles:

Moderator. Works with content at all meetings, planning meetings, sessions, etc., forcing people to adhere to the agenda, does not allow them to deviate from the topic, and monitors compliance with regulations. This increases the likelihood of resolving the issue within the allotted time frame and makes meetings more productive.
Facilitator. Works with the group, helping it achieve goals, agree on a solution more easily and quickly, using various techniques. This reduces conflict and increases both the quality and speed of decision making.
Mediator. Participates in specific conflicts (for example, labor disputes), helping the parties understand each other's interests and promote a constructive approach to resolving the conflict. This helps resolve conflicts, increase satisfaction from meetings and extinguish negative emotions.

I am convinced that the organization should have such a full-time employee in its structure, participating in all group meetings (planners, meetings, meetings, committees, sessions, commissions, seminars) and labor conflicts. Once managers try out group work with such a person and see the results, they will be left with one question: “Why didn’t we have this position before?”

Recalling the considerable experience of participating in group work, I will assume that attracting a specialist in effective interaction will reduce the time of meetings by half (the issue of the lack of time of top managers for pressing tasks is being resolved, and simple savings on the salaries of participants will more than cover the costs of a specialist), while significantly increasing effectiveness of meetings (effectiveness of developing decisions).