Evaluating HR Systems
“What is HR good for, anyway” is the question that
Mike O’Malley and Edward Lawler ask in the July/Aug 2003 issue of “Across
the Board”
Abstract:
“In bad times – and even in good times – HR is uniquely
vulnerable. Under pressure and skepticism. HR executives and practitioners have
striven to quantify what they do, trying to prove the discipline’s
effectiveness. But this emphasis on measurement will surely fail to accomplish
its goal: propelling HR chiefs into the inner circle of corporate
decision-makers. These metrics may contribute to the larger financial picture,
but, in the scheme of things, their revelatory conceptualizationns of behavior,
regardless of the status of the speaker and the seeming conviction behind his
words. In an effort to shake itself free of its sometimes foolish and fluffy
image, HR may be abondoning its most distinguished virtue. The problem for HR
is that miscues are personally experienced, highly visible, and quickly
attributed to a function gone haywire.”
O’Malley an Lawler state that “In an effort to shake
itself free of its sometimes foolish and fluffy image, HR may be abandoning its
most dinstiguished virtue.”
What is HR’s most distinguished virtue according to the
authors? Do you agree or disagree and Why? If metrics aren’t the answer, what
do you recommend to determine HR’s effectiveness?
I need to turn in a 8-10 page response. What I’m looking for
is a good 3-4 page response, with references, in order for me to expand on what
you have started. Thank you for your assistance.
