Don’t Count on HR to drive the change!

January 18, 2007 - Luc Galoppin

Whenever the human side is involved, organizational change projects tend either to ignore it or to completely outsource it to the human resources (HR) department. Hopes, dreams, wishes, and expectations are never taken into account,and training, communication and coaching are restricted to the minimum.

Forget what Dave Ulrich says

In his 1997 book Human Resource Champions Dave Ulrich challenges Human Resource professionals to define the value they create for the business. By doing so he distills these roles for Human Resources careers: strategic partner, administrative expert, employee champion and change agent.
As a result, the attitude in most projects is exemplified by this statement: “We’ll take care of the process reengineering and the technical stuff; HR will do the soft stuff.”
However, there are two fundamental reasons why you should not count on HR to drive a change.

1. HR is Not a Change Agent

HR safeguards continuity in the organization. Let’s face it: By their very nature, the fundamental HR processes are aimed at safeguarding stability. But when you ask HR managers about the core competencies of their departments, they will tell you that the management of organizational change is on the forefront. They are wrong. The basic processes of HR and their accompanying goals are the following:

  • Recruiting and Selection => Goal: Employment Continuity
  • Training and Development => Goal: Knowledge and Skills Continuity
  • Performance Management and Appraisal => Goal: Performance Continuity
  • Compensation and Benefits => Goal: Stability in Personnel Costs
  • Work organization and Communication Systems => Goal: Social Stability

Therefore, HR should be approached as you would any other function in the organization,and they should be the first target of your change-management efforts.But there is more.

2. HR is an Agent of Continuity

As a support function, HR will be impacted indirectly by a reengineering effort and will most likely resist at first hand. Does that disqualify them from having any stake in the organizational change? Not at all.

Change always happens in three phases: Unfreezing, Changing, and Refreezing. As the key strength of HR is to stabilize the human side of an organization during and after a transition, it is their role to lead the Refreezing stage. In order for the change to stick onto the organization, you are going to use the HR department’s tools and methods.

Therefore, HR is one of the first targets to work with. The faster you can enlist them into becoming a continuity agent, the better. Just don’t expect them to be on the same page from day one, as they—like everybody else—will resist the change in the beginning.

Conclusion: HR as a Co-Pilot in Long-Term Planning

From my experience, the only HR actions that have a positive impact take place at the beginning and at the end of a change program lifecycle. This leads me to conclude that continuity and not change is HR’s core business. Even when the organization is affected during the transition, HR should help you out in minimizing the disruption of continuity.

As an example, program staffing of key people is a task that needs to be conducted in close alignment with HR as it should involve career perspectives and long-term accountability. Gradually, as the program comes to a close, HR needs to become the owner of the deliverables regarding learning, performance, organization, and communication.

The role of HR in this case is one of sustaining the change and integrating it into its standards and procedures. In other words: safeguarding stability and continuity of the new organization.

  • astha

    Luc’s post triggered a rant of my own about HR

    While I agree with him that in the majority of cases HR does serve as an inertial force maintaining status quo- I also think that this is a remnant of the old “HR=admin” thinking.

    As talent becomes central to success, there is no reason to believe that the function can and will not evolve into a vanguard of change.

    I would also like to draw attention to the Model of Continuous Change, which appears to be more suited to the business realities of today- as compared to the classic three phase Lewinian Model.

    More in the post.

  • astha

    Luc’s post triggered a rant of my own about HRWhile I agree with him that in the majority of cases HR does serve as an inertial force maintaining status quo- I also think that this is a remnant of the old “HR=admin” thinking.As talent becomes central to success, there is no reason to believe that the function can and will not evolve into a vanguard of change.I would also like to draw attention to the Model of Continuous Change, which appears to be more suited to the business realities of today- as compared to the classic three phase Lewinian Model.More in the post.

  • Anonymous

    Luc, if you stated “Don’t count on HR to drive all changes!” I could agree with you. Clearly there are changes HR should not drive (IT, Technical Processes, etc). Just as clearly to me there are some changes HR can and likely should drive (people related systems and processes, etc.). Life, and business, is rarely a case of black & white statements. Jerry

  • Anonymous

    Luc, if you stated “Don’t count on HR to drive all changes!” I could agree with you. Clearly there are changes HR should not drive (IT, Technical Processes, etc). Just as clearly to me there are some changes HR can and likely should drive (people related systems and processes, etc.). Life, and business, is rarely a case of black & white statements. Jerry

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Luc in that HR is a key strength in stabilizing the organization and ensuring internalization of organizational changes. However, I think he fails to recognize the role HR plays in creating initial conditions for changes to occur, such as hiring people with a completely different set of skills, design inovative compensation strategies to attract and reward a different level of performance or develop a T&D strategy to dramatically change employee focus from cost efficiency to customer service, for example. Not all HR teams are apt to fulfill all these roles but HR professionals have the same opportunities to drive organizational changes as any other professionals in any other functions. Rosa.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Luc in that HR is a key strength in stabilizing the organization and ensuring internalization of organizational changes. However, I think he fails to recognize the role HR plays in creating initial conditions for changes to occur, such as hiring people with a completely different set of skills, design inovative compensation strategies to attract and reward a different level of performance or develop a T&D strategy to dramatically change employee focus from cost efficiency to customer service, for example. Not all HR teams are apt to fulfill all these roles but HR professionals have the same opportunities to drive organizational changes as any other professionals in any other functions. Rosa.

  • Barney Olson

    ‘A DISSERVICE TO READERS’

    Luc GALOPPIN is certainly entitled to have an opinion about whether the HR function can serve as a change agent for an organization (“Forget Dave Ulrich: HR Doesn’t Drive Organizational Change,” workforce.com/change-agent); however, when that opinion comes across as poorly developed and supported, the editors of Workforce Management are doing a disservice to readers by publishing it.

    What is Luc’s basis for suggesting that any of the “basic processes of HR” have the goals that he lists? Then, Luc contradicts himself by stating that HR’s role is to lead the refreezing stage of change. If refreezing is one of the key phases of change and HR leads that phase, then how is HR not functioning as a change agent? Logical flaws like this lead me to dismiss any author’s argument.

    I know these pieces are short and not meant to be academic research papers, but Luc’s article really lacked significant value and logic, especially in light of overwhelming anecdotal evidence, much of which has been published in Workforce Management, that suggests otherwise-that suggests that HR does, in fact, play a key role in implementing and managing change for many leading organizations.

    Generally speaking, I think Workforce Management publishes relevant, practical articles about current topics of interest to HR professionals. However, in this case I think you missed exercising the required editorial judgment to reject Luc’s article for the reasons I cited above.

    Barney Olson

    Associate consultant

    Personnel Decisions International

    Minneapolis

  • Barney Olson

    ‘A DISSERVICE TO READERS’Luc GALOPPIN is certainly entitled to have an opinion about whether the HR function can serve as a change agent for an organization (“Forget Dave Ulrich: HR Doesn’t Drive Organizational Change,” workforce.com/change-agent); however, when that opinion comes across as poorly developed and supported, the editors of Workforce Management are doing a disservice to readers by publishing it.What is Luc’s basis for suggesting that any of the “basic processes of HR” have the goals that he lists? Then, Luc contradicts himself by stating that HR’s role is to lead the refreezing stage of change. If refreezing is one of the key phases of change and HR leads that phase, then how is HR not functioning as a change agent? Logical flaws like this lead me to dismiss any author’s argument.I know these pieces are short and not meant to be academic research papers, but Luc’s article really lacked significant value and logic, especially in light of overwhelming anecdotal evidence, much of which has been published in Workforce Management, that suggests otherwise-that suggests that HR does, in fact, play a key role in implementing and managing change for many leading organizations.Generally speaking, I think Workforce Management publishes relevant, practical articles about current topics of interest to HR professionals. However, in this case I think you missed exercising the required editorial judgment to reject Luc’s article for the reasons I cited above.Barney OlsonAssociate consultantPersonnel Decisions InternationalMinneapolis