应该分配HR到业务部门吗？

原文作者:Josh Bersin

我们看到今日全球的工作方式，不断地在变化：人们用高密度连接的远程模式进行工作、企业全球化、组织越来越扁平化、员工敬业度低落，人才市场飞速地变化。

崭新的HR运作模式诞生的时刻到了吗？我们认为答案可能是肯定的。

一、HR研究的概况

现今人力资源部门主要处理HR运营作业、一致性HR体系的确保、以及战略议题。我们的研究发现，约2/3人力资源总预算投资于HR基础后勤：包括HR专业技术、HR基础框架和HR日常运营作业（薪资作业、合规内控、管理报表纪录）。约1/3的预算聚焦在战略性人才管理。

上述基础HR内勤作业（占人力资源预算2/3），必须在全球一体化、高度可扩展性、准确、高效下运作。所以，我们通常把人力资源组织设计成共享职能体系，以便管理（或者使用HR外包供应商）。我们的研究也发现：将上述内勤作业预算，平均摊销在全部员工，每员工每年大约需要企业支出USD 1,000至USD3,000的HR后勤费用。

但是，一旦你将这2/3的HR人力资源预算运作顺利后（当然，其中没有一项是容易运作的），剩下的1/3人力资源预算，必须聚焦在“战略性人力资源”、“学习与发展”两大HR模块，也就是我们说的“人才管理”：包含了人才挖掘、招聘、安置、培训、管理、发展、和团队支持等等，以及规划未来企业需要的人才。

在大多数企业中，关于人才的工作，打包在一个“人才管理”功能中（译者：作者这里指的是，总部中心进行好HR体系规划之后，交给配置在业务团队的HRBP去执行HR功能）。但是，我们的研究发现，高绩效的企业，是用不同、全新的方法来整合人才管理功能。

以目前一个全球运作级别的传统人才管理团队来说，工作包括：“人员招聘与安置”、“人才发展与调动”、“领导力和继任管理”、“企业层级培训”、“多元性学习主题”、“敬业度”、“薪酬”等一大堆工作。每一个人才管理工作，都很复杂。单是管理“企业层级培训”，企业就必须花费1-4％的工资，实在是艰巨的工作。

我们针对组织结构管理、员工发展最佳实践，建立了一个完整的实务研究。我们估计，全球企业每年花费超过130亿美元在培训上。

目前，大多数企业，有各种团队负责人才管理功能，透过不同层次的整合、集中，将这些人才管理团队配置到业务团队中。（但是，有些企业将这些功能整合在所谓的“卓越中心”，也就是我们接下建议你采取的改变方式）

二、HRBP为什么失败

传统的人力资源组织模型（20余年前所开始采用），把一切的HR相关工作，打包成一个“HRBP”岗位（HR Business Partner），通常也称作“人力资源通才”。传统这么设计初衷是，HRBP将透过COE(Centre of Excellence or Center of Expertise人力资源专业知识中心或人力资源领域专家) ，来“服务”和“支持”的领导者和员工。

但是，我们的研究和与许多客户的交流中，告诉我们，这种HRBP、通才模式是失败的。

为什么呢？有几个原因：

1.技能和专业知识：

首先，HRBP的定位必是具有高度商业特质的人，但是一般HR通常不是生意人。他们往往也没有足够的HR技能或专业，无法将复杂的人才管理工具，调整成因地制宜的方案。客户告诉我们，他们自己的HRBP缺乏必要的人才管理技能（实践、分析、教练...hellip;）；同时也不能扮演好一个商业头脑的复杂角色。

2.本地化授权程度：

在很多公司，HRBP没有被授权。因为在COE概念下，他们的工作已经“被挖空”。诚如一个资深人力资源主管所言：我找不到一个比告诉我的HR团队『我们希望HR团队是HR通才，而别人才是HR专家』更差劲的想法了！（译者：HR工作者希望自己展现的是HR专业高度，而不是大而无当的通才！）

虽然，HRBP有足够时间向业务同事与其他相关者去学习，也经常看到很多本地业务需要自己协助的地方，但是，他们往往没有权力自行定义或订制COE的程序（译者：COE这里指的是总部人力资源中心所颁布的规章制度）。这也导致了业务团队不认同HRBP的高层次角色、不让HRBP过多参与业务，甚至进一步认为，在本地招聘一个较低素质的人员来担任HRBP即可。业务团队认为，如果HRBP没有权力，就不可能做好业务伙伴的角色。

3.外界商业智慧。

HRBP往往花费了大量的时间，埋头在作业细节、支持当地的管理者和员工工作。有时，业务团队将HRBP当作垃圾场，把自己不喜欢的行政工作倾倒给配置在业务团队的HRBP。因此，HRBP很少有时间接触到外面的世界、学习新的东西、提高自己的通才技能。

4.广泛多元的角色。

最后，我们发现，HRBP如此重要的角色，必须满足许多潜在的需求。可能某一天，他们是高层管理人员的教练，第二天处理着员工关系，第三天可能正修改激励计划。我们的研究表明，HRBP通常沦为满足不同的业务领导“爱好”（组织发展相关、招聘和人员配置、员工关系、薪资激励、执行项目计划）的角色。

HR最终目标

我们正在试图完成人力资源的设计，不仅是为了“优化人力资源”，而是以“优化领导力、管理者和员工”作为最终目标。也就是说，人力资源的工作不是“管理业务”，而是“帮助管理者管理业务”。因此，人力资源的组织和管理的最终目标，是一套结构化的解决方案（构架、角色分工、执行项目），使得管理者能过作出更快、更好的决策，并能够以全新且令人兴奋的方式激励下属。

三、高贡献人力资源部门的方法

我们的研究显示，高贡献的人力资源部门，必须以不同的方式做事：

1.对于配置到业务团队的HR团队，授予更大权力和智慧。（译者：作者这里指的智慧，应该是配置高阶专业的HR人才）。

这意味着在业务单位里会有不同的组织结构、更多的授权、更多的HR专家。它打破了传统的COE（ center of expertise专业知识中心）的结构。（译者：把大量HR专家从总部中心移到业务单位）

2.打造“专家网络”。

不仅是HR从COE移到业务单位，并让更多高级专业人才配置在需要他们的业务单位（而不是总部）。HR透过创建这类“外部智慧”功能，能够不断改善和发展“新人才解决方”。（译者：HR专家与其他专家配置在作战前线，最了解前线作战情况，最能学习到公司内部以外的商业智慧，并应用于内部制度的优化。但是，必须透过IT技术打造个一个平台，提供内部专家充分交流，形成一个知识管理网路。把外部智慧留在平台上，而不是专家个人的心中）

3. 花更多的时间和金钱投资人力资源团队建设。

每个HR专业需要个人发展计划（一些组织正在建设人力资源认证项目），来提高HR专业与企业本身业务的知识与技能。高绩效的企业告诉我们，新世代的人力资源专家，需要50％的的MBA技能和50％的HR技能。

4.清晰地定义HR战略，考虑你是“领先者”、“快速跟随者”或是侧重于“效率”。我们的研究显示，你所选择的战略可以帮助你确定最佳的运营模式。（译者：作者此处指的HR战略，可能包含了企业的人均收入、人均生产力、创新的贡献度、领导力人才的比率等等）

5.高度聚焦在将上述所提到的人才管理实务，整合成人才管理团队，包括人才获得、发展、流通调动、留才、敬业、报酬和分析。

6.把人力资源IT科技看作是“敬业度系统”（译者：engagement敬业度指的是员工投入承诺、情感和智慧,以完成组织的使命和愿景）而不是“记录系统”，所以，人力资源基础建设必须直接支持员工和管理者的工作。我们所接触的企业，由于急需改善用户界面，近三分之一正在考虑以云计算解决方案，取代传统的人力资源管理IT系统。

7.确保你有一个整合性人才分析系统的建立计划，这涉及整合所有人力资源功能的分析团队。

8.设置一个由高阶执行者负责的管理流程，让资深业务领导能透过这个流程，能够观察且并影响全公司的HR、学习与发展、人才投资等HR体系。（译者：这个流程的目的，正是提高业务线领导对HR工作的engagement）

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Should we Distribute HR Into the Business?

Today we see continued change in the world of work: people work remotely with high degrees of connectivity, companies are globalized and organizations are flatter, employee engagement is low, and talent markets are rapidly changing .

Is it time for a new operating model for HR? We think the answer may be yes.

We are completing several years of research into the modern High-Impact HR Organization and we have uncovered some significant findings.

(Come to IMPACT 2013: The Business of Talent, on April 22-24 to hear the details.)

The State of HR Organizations Today

Human resources organizations today deal with many operational, compliance, as well as strategic issues. Our research shows that approximately 2/3 of all HR spending focuses on technology, infrastructure, and operational programs (payroll, compliance, record-keeping) and around 1/3 focuses on strategic talent management.

The 2/3 of back office work are things that must be globally integrated, highly scalable, accurate, and efficient. So when we design an HR organization we typically create shared services groups (and use outside providers) to manage these tasks. And our research shows (cataloged in the Bersin by Deloitte HR Factbook, with details available to members) that you can benchmark this back office spending and it will typically cost between $1,000 and $3,000 per employee to deliver per year.

But once you have these programs running well (and this is no easy task), the remaining 1/3 of the HR budget must optimize its efforts on the strategic value HR and Lamp;D provides: supporting what we now call 'talent management' - sourcing, hiring, staffing, training, managing, developing, and supporting the team... and planning talent needs into the future.

In most companies these talent-related functions are being moved into the 'Talent Management' function, and our research shows that high performing organizations are integrating talent functions in new and different ways. Today a world-class talent management team includes staffing and recruiting, talent development and mobility, leadership and succession management, corporate training, as well as the disciplines of diversity, engagement, and compensation. A lot of 'stuff.'

Each of these talent functions in and of themselves are complex. Just managing corporate training, where companies spend 1-4% of payroll, is hugely daunting. We have built an entire research practice around the practices of managing the structure, organization, and best-practices of employee development, and we estimate that businesses spend over $130 billion around the world on training alone.

Most companies today have a variety of teams performing these functions (sometimes located in 'centers of excellence,' a term we are going to recommend you change) and they are at various levels of integration, centralization, or distribution into the business.

A Newly Defined Role for HR Business Partners

In the traditional HR organization model (designed more than 20 years ago), the role that pulls all this stuff together is called the HR Business Partner, of often named 'HR Generalist.' The idea for these people was that they would 'serve' and 'support' business leaders and staff, using the expertise of the COE for support.

Well, our research and many conversations with clients tells us that this model is not working.

Why? Several reasons:

1. Skills and Expertise : First of all, the HR business partners need to be very business oriented and they do not often have the skills or expertise to customize and apply all these complex practices locally. Our clients tell us that their own teams lack the necessary skills it all the talent practices, analytics, coaching, and general business acumen needed for such a complex role.

2. Local Authority: In many companies the HR generalist or business partner has no authority. Their jobs have been 'hollowed out' by the concept of the COE. As one senior HR leader put it, 'I couldnt think of a worse idea than to tell my HR community that we want them to be generalists and let someone else be experts.'

While they have time to learn from their own stakeholders and often see many local needs to help, they are often not given the authority to customize or change programs which come from the COE. This leads to low adoption and often a lower opinion of HR than is justified. If they are not empowered, they often cannot do their jobs.

3. External Intelligence. The HR business partners are often buried in detail and spend a lot of their time simply supporting or aiding local managers and employees. Sometimes they are the dumping grounds for administrative work people dont want to do themselves. So they have very little time to reach out into the outside world, learn new things, and collectively improve their own skills.

4. Widely varying roles. And finally, we find that this critical role must span many potential needs. One day they are coaching top executives, the next day they are dealing with employee relations issues, and a third day they may be revising compensation plans. Our research shows that the HR business partner role typically falls into different 'flavors,' (OD-related, recruiting and staffing, employee relations and compensation, and executive planning).

The Ultimate Goal

Ultimately what we are trying to accomplish in the design of HR is not only to 'optimize HR' but rather to 'optimize leadership, management and employees.' That is, HRrsquo;s job is not to 'manage the business' but rather to 'help managers manage the business.' So our ultimate goal in HR organization and governance is to put in place a set of structures, roles, and programs that empower leaders to make

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[287318]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word