|
There
are different kinds of HRD structures for different organisations.
T V Rao elaborates on the various categories, focusing on why these
structures should be need-based
| HRD
departments should be high competency-based, business driven
rather than merely HRD system driven |
 |
In
organisations, HRD structures may take many forms. Some of these
include:
A
dedicated and fully-manned HRD department
(i)
A corporate HRD department with HRD cells in the units or locations.
(ii)
A high profile HRD chief with very limited staff
(iii)
A HRD Task Force largely drawn from line managers with an HRD-trained
chairman.
(iv)
The CEO himself handling HRD.
(v)
The training manager handling HRD.
(vi)
The personnel chief handling HRD.
(vii)
HRD being handled at the corporate level by HRD staff and at the
unit level integrated into the personnel department.
The
reasoning also is valid for structuring HRD at national levels for
development. It could be structured as a separate department or
ministry. Most countries in the developing world have done this.
There is, in fact, a regular convention of ministers and others
associated with Human Resources Development in the Asia-Pacific
region, ESCAP region, sub-Saharan Africa, etc. In some countries,
the prime minister himself may be handling HRD portfolios. In other
countries specialised task forces look after Human Development,
education and the like. The above structural issue and the discussion
below are equally applicable at the national level for development
purposes.
Dedicated
full-department
HRD
departments may become developed depending upon the size of the
organisation and its needs. It is not uncommon to have large-size
HR departments in large-size organisations. For example, in some
organisations, the size of HR departments runs into hundreds. In
IT companies in developing countries, there is an HR person for
every 50 to 100 knowledge workers. In large-size organisations,
HR tasks may be subdivided. Different HR staff may deal with different
HR tasks. There can also be a dedicated full-scope HRD Ministry
in a country.
Corporate
HRD with HRD cells in locations
In
this structure, there is normally a corporate HRD function at the
headquarters and there are separate independent HR departments at
plant/geographic/ regions/zones. The plant or location cells normally
have dual reporting relationships—one to the location head
and the second to the corporate HR chief. Policy responsibilities
are normally with corporate HR and implementation responsibilities
are with the location HR cell. This structure introduces its own
dynamics. For example, the corporate HR may be insensitive to local
needs and the location HR may be too engrossed with routine matters
and immediate needs. The locational HR may tend to downplay and
neglect long-term strategies and HR policies.
In
countries with a federal government and regional frame-work (states
or other territorial divisions) these structures are common. The
issues are similar. The federal minister of HRD or the education
and the state minister for HRD constitute the HRD team.
Sleek
department
Another
structural variation practiced by some organisations is to have
one or more high-profile HR chiefs with fewer staff. This structure
is more common in software, financial services and such other companies
with a high proportion of professional staff. In such cases, the
competencies of the HR chief become more critical than the structure
itself. Outsourcing HR implementation is more common in such structures.
The audit should focus on the adequacy of this model as well as
the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing practices.
HRD
taskforce
In
smaller organisations that do not require a full-fledged HRD department,
a group of competent line managers could form a task force with
one of them as chairperson. The group meets periodically and plans
HR interventions, and implements and monitors them. In some instances,
they could be assisted by a full-time HRD manager. In this structure,
the ownership is with the task force. This kind of structure is
possible in smaller organisations. National-level working groups,
committees and task forces are a common practice.
CEO
as HRD manager
In
yet another variation, the CEO himself may handle HR functions.
In such a case, he takes the help of the corporate planning cell
or TQM cell or the other related role holders. Principally he takes
all strategic HR decisions. This kind of structure is possible in
relatively smaller organisations. The personnel function is separated
out in such cases and does only establishment work of routine nature.
Other
structures
In
addition to these, there are other models. These incl-ude the training
manager or the personnel manager handling the HR function. Each
of these has their advantages and disadvantages.
The
HRD department plays a significant role in making the HRD systems
and processes work.
The
structure includes the following:
1.
Task structure including the activities, their grouping and their
linkages;
2.
Manpower including the levels and their competencies, experience,
etc.;
3.
Roles, role relationships, role clarity, role effectiveness and
inter-role linkages;
4.
Competency structure;
5.
Infrastructure and infrastructure facilities for effective functioning
of the HRD departments;
6.
Organisational structure including hierarchies and hierarchical
relations and organisational process, including the systems processes,
norms values and culture that governs the department.
The
following are typical points that need to be kept in mind while
structuring the HRD department:
Ensure
that the structure is need-based
HRD
departments in the past have proliferated. In the mid-70s when HRD
departments were started, they were started with a view to promote
competence-building and work motivation. The personnel departments
did not focus their attention on developmental aspects and it was
felt necessary to have a specialised group in order to promote learning
among individuals, dyads and teams. The CEOs were urged to pay attention
to the human aspect of the organisation. The HRD department became,
in a way, an instrument for this. The need was fulfilled to a large
extent by the late 80s. By the early 90s, the focus of HRD changed
from HR for its own sake to HR for business. Today in a globally
competitive environment, the assumption that human resources in
an organisation deserve attention so that they can be harnessed
and developed in order to help the organisation achieve its goals,
is well-understood and need not be stressed.
The
following principles may have to be kept in mind while evaluating
the structure and their adequacy:
-
HRD departments have the capability like any other department
to self-multiply. Such self-multiplication is not always in the
interests of the company. Every activity has to have value addition.
-
HRD department should be high competency-based, business driven
rather than merely HRD system driven.
-
It is possible to implement HRD systems and to strengthen HR processes
in a corporation without a formal HRD department.
Ensure
value addition
The
HRD activities undertaken by the HRD department should contribute
to one or more of the following:
-
Competencies required to execute or conduct the current (this
year and the next year) business effectively and efficiently and
meet business goals (profits, cost reduction, increased market
share, quality of products, market image, new markets, customer
satisfaction and delight, appropriate use of current resources
including technology, people, organisational capabilities, etc.)
-
Competencies needed to contribute to the future (next three years
and above), and business goals of the company. This may flow from
the business strategies and the long-term plans (diversification,
new product development, new technologies, new markets, new processes,
new culture, etc.).
Excerpt
taken from ‘Future of HRD’ by TV Rao, Macmillan India
Ltd
|
