By Neil McEachern, CHRP Candidate

Many of HR’s underlying principles are challenged in our changing world. How then, might HR leaders bring new principles to bear?

The simple answer is a thorough analysis of the principle and its effect on our organization in both the short and long term. As we are aware, our profession had often been criticized by other executives for bringing little apparent value to the organization; while this may seem like a cheap shot, it is something we must take with a grain of salt and is perhaps a catalyst to back up our decision-making process with metrics.

A SWOT analysis helps us to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of implementing this new HR practice. It is a key step in helping us to deal with those resistant to change, as it is able to explain the reasons behind why such a change is needed in the first place for the good of the organization. Through the additional use of metrics and in-depth research of the proposed policy, looking at both the successes and failures of others can aid in the decision-making process. Together, these methods of analysis together make up a solid utility belt for any HR professional in charge of proposing new HR practices. However, analysis and metrics cannot be the be all and end all of the decision-making process. SWOT analysis is not perfect and even the best research can be flawed; there are times when a leap of faith must be taken. This is especially the case when it comes to policies that are truly cutting-edge (such as a workplace social media policy, which to date has yet to come in effect at many firms, i.e. your workplace).

Furthermore, we as HR professionals must remember the empathic nature of our profession and at times must be proponents for drawing the line and siding with the employees. While this stance may seem conciliatory to our critics, in reality, our position requires us to maintain a finely balanced role – as advocate of the employee while simultaneously being in charge of managing our intellectual resources to maximize their efficiency and thus positively impact on the company’s bottom line.

Another area where HR may have to take a leap of faith is in implementing a proactive policy towards long term disability. Long term disability is something most companies outsource to insurance providers without ever thinking about it again, until it is time to renew the policy; however, there are other options out there such as putting in place a proactive policy that helps employees to reduce the potential for long term disability. The problem is that measuring the success of such a program requires time and while we are still in the midst of a recession, there is little room for experimentation. However, even with a SWOT analysis and further research, would it not be possible for us as HR professionals to see the inherent value of being proactive with long term disability by introducing programs to prevent disability from occurring in the first place?

Lastly, we must determine how easy it will be for us to manage the resistance to change we are likely to encounter. This can be done by using Kotter’s 8 step model1 for successful change with a focus on the first two steps in particular (forming a sense of urgency and creating a coalition) for this particular exercise.

We need to determine if we can create a sense of urgency behind what we want to implement to gauge the employees’ reaction to the proposed practice. This can be facilitated by either surveys or exit interviews. Once that has been determined, we must explore our ability to convince others; now that we have validated the need for such a practice, we require their support for it to be successfully implemented. While this may seem Machiavellian in nature, it is a necessary step for HR professionals to build consensus around our practices, to ensure that once approved they will be implemented across the organization with as little resistance as possible.

In conclusion, while solid analysis and research will always likely be the backbone of our decision making process, when it comes to determining HR practices we must also take into account the “human” factor of our profession. One cannot justify a certain practice based on sound analysis alone. This has a potential to lead us towards a slippery slope of implementing practices that may be fiscally sound and have an immediate impact on the bottom line, but also potential lead to a severe impact on employee engagement, which should be a key mandate for any HR professional.

PeopleTalk: Summer 2011