Why the Human Resource department and it's performance are important to the success of the entire company ?

seriously its not,,, if it wasnt for the workers there wouldnt be a company

This is really an interesting question and one that I do not believe any answer is applicable across all companies. That said, the current definition of such a job is along the lines of, human resources, training, and labor relations managers and specialists provide a connection between management and employees by selecting the most qualified prospective employees, for the correct job. The idea here being that many organizations are too large for management to bridge such a gap.

In the past, todayā€™s human resource personnel primarily performed such as the administrative function of an organization, such as handling employee benefits questions or recruiting, interviewing, and hiring new staff in accordance with policies and requirements that have been established in conjunction with top management. Todayā€™s human resources workers manage these tasks and, increasingly, consult top executives regarding strategic planning. They have moved from behind-the-scenes staff work to leading the company in suggesting and changing policies.

In some types of companies this may work well, but I suggest that isnā€™t so in all companies. Some companies continue to find the value of human resources people (members of the personnel department) in the older functions. Then there are others where a different approach is taken.

In some companies (granted a minority) middle management and senior employees are included in such decisions and awareness of policy directions. For example, some companies include departmental managers and senior employees in policies and operational cost through budget procedures. In terms of hiring new employees these departmental managers and senior employees justify a need for new departmental employees (including impact on budgets), once approved they issue their own ads for new hires, do the interviews, and select the new employee. The idea is that they know what they need far more than anyone else and they are the ones who have to live with the result.

At the other extreme are companies which have engaged a Human Resources Company which does all of this for them. In such an organization (no matter the official statements), they tend to orient toward young, degreed new employees and disregard older individuals lacking a degree even those who have worked at the company previously doing exactly the job for which they are hiring.

While there are some good reasons which support the expanding role of the human resource function, in many companies they are intruding into areas best handled by more traditional functions and are doing so to the detriment to the future of the company.

The old idea yet is probably the best, focus on those who do the actual work. In general, the direct labor worker contributes to productivity and burden functions (such as human resources) detract from productivity. Obviously the subject requires more consideration than this short sentence, but as a rule of thumb, if the decision to layoff or discharge some job, I would lean toward doing so with the burden job and not the direct labor job. I know I can make the company work with direct labor people but having mostly indirect labor (burden) people the company will more likely fail.

Because without good people a company can't function properly. Human Resources manages just that, the human capital of the company and the knowlegde that the employees hold is a company's greatest asset.

HR departments are responsible for every part of managing human capital. This includes: keeping current human capital by pay, benefits, dealing with any discipline issues; managing the need for more/less workers; keeping within a company's budget for human capital; and making sure the company stays within the legal boundries of hiring/firing and day to day issues.

Human resource dept is just to give the workers someone to ***** to. They don't do much else.

I think there are two perspectives to this answer:

1) Closely examine all of your HR functions and identify those which truly affect the company's business performance. A good way to do this is to project the removal of an entire function, say staffing (or personnel or whatever you may call it) and evaluate the affect on the company. If the company's core business moves right along anyway, then a close examination needs to be given to the function. If the company's core business grinds to a halt or experiences some kind of meaningful and tangible impact to the core business, then that function is important and needs to be strengthened.

When the functions that are absolutely vital to the company's operations, i.e.the company would experience some kind of serious disruption without them, are identified, then you have the first and most important part of the answer to your question: why HR and its performance are valuable to the company.

2) With the above review in mind, it would be good to prepare a "review" of HR showing the various functions, and then giving a clear and succint explanation of how this unit contributes to the good of the company in a *tangible* way. Include numbers! Keep this publication updated and use it for various purposes, from helping to educate the workers at the "floor" level, to working with uppper management, to education for the public.

hahahahahahhahaahahahaaaaahahaha, ha.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.014
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Sunday, May 27, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy