I thought I’d take a shot at this as a separate post. I actually wrote my strategy post before reading Jeff’s stuff at Talentism, and I’m glad I did. I think we vary slightly in our approach to the topic, but let me explain after I note the 2 definitions of strategy.
In Jeff’s post:
First question…. I define strategy as follows: the plans that, when executed properly, will increase investor return to a greater extent than if any other set of plans had been followed. Most McKinsey types take this to mean “Plans that increase shareholder return.” But that is too limiting. It is part of the old “capital is more valuable than talent” orthodoxy. Shareholders are just one form of investor. As long as capital was the only value worth measuring, shareholders were the only investor worth having. But as I have talked about here, an investor in the creative age is described by any person, group or institution that provides value to the enterprise and expects consummate or greater value in return. So “strategy” could be plans that increase return to employees… Or “strategy” could be plans that increase returns to vendors.
Hunter, Jeff, January 4, 2006. “Strategic Step 1 – The Three Questions.” Retrieved from http://www.talentism.com on January 7, 2006.
And my post:
[HR strategy is] shaping the workforce around the organization’s business needs, and manipulating behavioral changes to match the desired environmental goals.
Is it really so different? I don’t think so. A well executed strategy should really achieve both of these objectives. I think our core difference is in approach and philosophy, although I’m guessing and would not presume to speak for Jeff. In my opinion, the return of value is a financial metric quite useful in measuring our success. Generally I’m a quantitative person, but in this case I’m going to defer to my background as an HR practitioner and argue that my philosophy (shaping the workforce) is a more traditional approach.
Perhaps I should expand on “shaping the workforce.” Shaping the workforce simply means that it acquires and manages the workforce population toward a set of skills (competencies or whatever you want to insert here) required to achieve the business goals and objectives. Perhaps this is where the systematicHR definition is different from Talentism”. In my definition, a perfectly executed HR strategy may not yield increasing value if other non-HR strategies are executed poorly. If I were Jeff, I would now argue that a perfectly executed HR strategy would shape the executive workforce as well, thus minimizing any chance that the business strategy could go astray.
I also wanted to point out something that Heather mentioned in the comments for Jeff’s post. “People in staffing need to get comfortable with the fact that most of what they do is tactical and that there’s real value there.”
I think increasing value (employee or vendor as Jeff calls it) is a broader business objective. The HR sub-function drives toward the business objective by deploying a sub-strategy. In my opinion, this is to define and shape the workforce. The end result of shaping the workforce is hopefully an increase in value. What Jeff’s definition does better is to tie directly to the business objectives. I can already hear my critics. “If you want a S.A.T.T (seat at the table – ugh…) your strategy must match that of the organization…” I’m not sure this is true. The HR strategy must support the foundational business strategy, but it need not be the same, nor must it have the utilize the same metric.
So, we all know there isn’t a right answer on this. The key is that Jeff and I are both right. We have tied our HR strategies to overall business objectives through slightly different approaches.
2 responses to “Defining HR Strategy – Talentism vs. systematicHR”
Dubs –
First, let me say it is an honor to be exploring this subject with you. Quite cool.
I would agree with your definition if there was a quantifiable and substantially agreed-upon method to measure the value contribution of an individual to overall corporate advantage.
In that case, you could draw a clear strategic plan that would start with an overall corporate objective and then work down to each individual’s contribution to that objective. This would include verifiable measurements of how a person has performed against those objectives, as well as the ability to account for people changing strategy locally and undertaking tactics that add value in hindsight but which weren’t part of the original plan.
In such a case HR (or as I will start calling it “Talent Strategy and Operations (TSO)”) is clearly a strategic asset, and I would agree with your definition in general. But since this is not the case, I think that we have to start at a broader level of strategy definition (investor value) and then move to put in the neccessary infrastructure to get to your more specific definition.
The great thing is that I think we are both on the same mission – to take a function that is largely seen as task-focused cost center and lay the groundwork for it to become a function that creates sustainable competitive advantage.
PS – Love the new site. Looks great!
Hmmm, too much agreeing here. I was prepared for a full defense of my argument (I was expecting many more contrarians) but it’s still early. In fact, I completely agreed with Andrew’s comment in the other post, and I wish I had said his exact words myself. I do think we are heading the same way with a slightly different approach.
Great point on the ability to verifiably measure the success of the HR strategy. I don’t think my definition precludes measurement, but it certainly isn’t as obvious. I am also unsure what that measurement should be.
More on this tonight when I have some time…