Hi Jeevan
A very interesting issues has been brought up by you.... Hey, if not Human Resource Manager, then why not we think of some other designation?
I believe that the most important part of an organization is under the HR Manager. Don't you see that all the manpower requisitions are sent to him, as well as all other activites like development etc of the human resource is done through him. Please don't forget that HR is more of a staff function.. And as the role of staff goes- HR manager assits ever department.
You are also overlooking an important relation of HR manager with all other managers. HR manager can in fact control all other managers..Whereas it is not the vice-versa..
So, HR manager has an authority over others.. Look at the brighter side dear!!!
Cheers
Pinks
From India, Jaipur
2A very interesting issues has been brought up by you.... Hey, if not Human Resource Manager, then why not we think of some other designation?
I believe that the most important part of an organization is under the HR Manager. Don't you see that all the manpower requisitions are sent to him, as well as all other activites like development etc of the human resource is done through him. Please don't forget that HR is more of a staff function.. And as the role of staff goes- HR manager assits ever department.
You are also overlooking an important relation of HR manager with all other managers. HR manager can in fact control all other managers..Whereas it is not the vice-versa..
So, HR manager has an authority over others.. Look at the brighter side dear!!!
Cheers
Pinks
From India, Jaipur
Dear Samvedan, Aby, Naina and Archna and all other friends who are watching this topic,
I was really happy to see the arguments in support of the view that HR Manager is managing the human resource.
But, my happiness drained quickly when I read the articles on 'Meaning of Human Resource' and 'Role of HR department in organizations' in the Related Articles Section that appeared in CiteHR in this posting.
I am requesting all of you to please read these articles. (I am also attaching the articles for your ready reference with some key words highlighted.)
Some of the statements in the articles that are so disheartening and against your views are -
Personnel management is a responsibility of all those who manage people
Personnel management is a responsibility of all line managers in an organization, viz., general manager, production manager, marketing manager, finance manager, etc.,
Thus, all managers in the organization are vitally concerned with personnel management as they must achieve organizational goals through other people’s efforts.
The personnel department is responsible for advising management from Managing Director to the lowest line supervisor on all area relating to the personnel management and industrial relations.
Personnel department generally acts in an advisory capacity; it provides information, offers suggestions and is not responsible for the end results.
PM executives exercise the monitoring and control function sparingly.
Friends, now please tell me whether I should stick to the view that HR Manager is not managing the Human Resource.
Again, are we all labouring under the impression that the HR manager is managing all the employees including other heads, the GM, the VP, and so on? Why did you leave the CEO out?
Again, let me tell you that the HR manager is handling people related issues and aspects of the organization. In the process, he cannot assume that he is handling a bigger role such as managing the human resource.
To give an example, if you have a Health department as a part of your company meant for helping employees to manage/maintain their health, then health being people related issue, the Health dept is helping for health maintenance. They are managing one aspect related to the people, that is, the human resource. They cannot assume that they are managing the human resurce, just because they are managing one aspect of people management.
Similarly, the HR dept. is handling certain people related issues of the organization. It does not mean HR dept. is managing the human resource.
HR manager is an internal consultant giving advice to the line managers.
HR manager is a specialist in handling people related issues - these could be people's performance problems, discipline issues, union issues etc. He is like a Doctor of Medicine sitting inside the company checking the people issues and giving prescriptions for solving those issues. But, he is not managing the people by doing this.
Just because the GM, VP, and other managers come to him (how many of them would like to come to him unless they are expected by the organization's norms and the CEO's direction is yet another question), if the HR manager thinks he is managing all of them, then he needs some psychiatric treatment, as someone said recently to me. :roll:
What is your view, please?
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
I was really happy to see the arguments in support of the view that HR Manager is managing the human resource.
But, my happiness drained quickly when I read the articles on 'Meaning of Human Resource' and 'Role of HR department in organizations' in the Related Articles Section that appeared in CiteHR in this posting.
I am requesting all of you to please read these articles. (I am also attaching the articles for your ready reference with some key words highlighted.)
Some of the statements in the articles that are so disheartening and against your views are -
Personnel management is a responsibility of all those who manage people
Personnel management is a responsibility of all line managers in an organization, viz., general manager, production manager, marketing manager, finance manager, etc.,
Thus, all managers in the organization are vitally concerned with personnel management as they must achieve organizational goals through other people’s efforts.
The personnel department is responsible for advising management from Managing Director to the lowest line supervisor on all area relating to the personnel management and industrial relations.
Personnel department generally acts in an advisory capacity; it provides information, offers suggestions and is not responsible for the end results.
PM executives exercise the monitoring and control function sparingly.
Friends, now please tell me whether I should stick to the view that HR Manager is not managing the Human Resource.
Again, are we all labouring under the impression that the HR manager is managing all the employees including other heads, the GM, the VP, and so on? Why did you leave the CEO out?
Again, let me tell you that the HR manager is handling people related issues and aspects of the organization. In the process, he cannot assume that he is handling a bigger role such as managing the human resource.
To give an example, if you have a Health department as a part of your company meant for helping employees to manage/maintain their health, then health being people related issue, the Health dept is helping for health maintenance. They are managing one aspect related to the people, that is, the human resource. They cannot assume that they are managing the human resurce, just because they are managing one aspect of people management.
Similarly, the HR dept. is handling certain people related issues of the organization. It does not mean HR dept. is managing the human resource.
HR manager is an internal consultant giving advice to the line managers.
HR manager is a specialist in handling people related issues - these could be people's performance problems, discipline issues, union issues etc. He is like a Doctor of Medicine sitting inside the company checking the people issues and giving prescriptions for solving those issues. But, he is not managing the people by doing this.
Just because the GM, VP, and other managers come to him (how many of them would like to come to him unless they are expected by the organization's norms and the CEO's direction is yet another question), if the HR manager thinks he is managing all of them, then he needs some psychiatric treatment, as someone said recently to me. :roll:
What is your view, please?
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Hi friends,
Let us analyse what the HR manager is doing in the organizations.
1.Manpower planning:
Who is actually doing the manpower planning? Is it the HR manager?
Never. It is the line manager, because he knows how many workstations are necessary to achieve the production/service level that the company has targeted. He knows how the technology can help reduce headcount in the department. One modern machine comes, so many people are out!
Who estimates the back-up manpower needed? The line manager only.
Who can make the time-study and work study that help refine the manpower needs? Some other technical dept.
Then, what is the HR manager doing for manpower planning? Simply compiling and consolidating the headcounts needed for all departments, preparing headcount budget statements and reports, putting it in the computer and then busily running here and there as though he invented this.
2.Recruitment:
Who needs the people? The line managers and other staff function departments, for doing their jobs. They want to select the right people. Thay are busy with their line jobs. They don't want to waste their precious time seeing the CVs of street walkers. So, they have dumped on the head of head-hr all the resumes - relevant, not relevant, useful, useless - for him to break his head. But, the HR person thinks he is really having the previlige of selecting the fortune few for employment.
Well. At least, does the HR manager evaluates these candidates? No. His job stops at designing some 'Candidature Evaluation Form' (the junior HR persons sometimes imitate the forms of other companies or CiteHR downloads).
He is part of the panel. Why? Because, this is how other managers want him to feel. Only then he will be happily 'scrutinizing' all the resumes to find few relevant amidst the rest meant for waste paper mart. But, again, who dictate the criteria for resume screening? The line managers and the CEO.
Who conducts the psychometric tests for the candidates?
The psychologist engaged by the HR manager designs the test or a test readily available is used for the test. The HR manager is only organizing the test. He is not a practicing psychologist, after all.
Who evaluates the candidate?
The candidate's job knowledge, which is the most important aspect, is really evaluated by other managers, who are in the job. (Of course, a candidate for HR dept. could be evaluated by HR manager)
3.Performance Management:
This is yet another area, where the HR manager is greatly under the illusion that he is responsible for and managing this.
Who is doing the performance appraisal? The concerned dept. superior only.
Who is selecting the KPI or KRA? The HR manager is not trained to select apprporiate KRAs for other functions. For example, finance. The HR manager is not competent to say that EBIT is a valid KPI (Unless he has education or expereince in financial management).
Then, what is the role of HR in Performance Management? Just organizing, reminding all the managers that appraisals are to be done, distributing the appraisal forms, collecting back the filled up forms, helplessly reading all the biased appraisals, doing some amount of moderation (it could be a further damage), if there is some scope in the system, compile all the papers, consolidate and present to the CEO, take all the curses/abuses from the CEO because he represents (!) the big salary expectations of all the employees (while the line managers are tactfully behind the scene at this stage, but will take the credit from the employees once increments are granted as per recommendations.), going and looking at the employees to silently convey (how else) he was also a party to the increment granting process.
Then, preparing all the increment orders, signing part of these orders so happily as if he was the deciding authority, forgetting he is signing because other managers are too busy to do this signing ceremony with this piece of paper and this job is therefore given to HR. He can't change any figure in this paper, but has the privilige of choosing some phrases or words of the letter (if CEO agrees after he sees that all these words will not mean any additional expense to the company more than what the figures have already conveyed.).
Then, at last asking his team to file all these confidential (!!!) papers in the respective employee file.
Like this, if you see the role of HR in Compensation, Training or any other function called as HR function, the role is mostly clerical, advisory, secondary, and many times subordinate. :oops:
Your views are welcome, please.
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Let us analyse what the HR manager is doing in the organizations.
1.Manpower planning:
Who is actually doing the manpower planning? Is it the HR manager?
Never. It is the line manager, because he knows how many workstations are necessary to achieve the production/service level that the company has targeted. He knows how the technology can help reduce headcount in the department. One modern machine comes, so many people are out!
Who estimates the back-up manpower needed? The line manager only.
Who can make the time-study and work study that help refine the manpower needs? Some other technical dept.
Then, what is the HR manager doing for manpower planning? Simply compiling and consolidating the headcounts needed for all departments, preparing headcount budget statements and reports, putting it in the computer and then busily running here and there as though he invented this.
2.Recruitment:
Who needs the people? The line managers and other staff function departments, for doing their jobs. They want to select the right people. Thay are busy with their line jobs. They don't want to waste their precious time seeing the CVs of street walkers. So, they have dumped on the head of head-hr all the resumes - relevant, not relevant, useful, useless - for him to break his head. But, the HR person thinks he is really having the previlige of selecting the fortune few for employment.
Well. At least, does the HR manager evaluates these candidates? No. His job stops at designing some 'Candidature Evaluation Form' (the junior HR persons sometimes imitate the forms of other companies or CiteHR downloads).
He is part of the panel. Why? Because, this is how other managers want him to feel. Only then he will be happily 'scrutinizing' all the resumes to find few relevant amidst the rest meant for waste paper mart. But, again, who dictate the criteria for resume screening? The line managers and the CEO.
Who conducts the psychometric tests for the candidates?
The psychologist engaged by the HR manager designs the test or a test readily available is used for the test. The HR manager is only organizing the test. He is not a practicing psychologist, after all.
Who evaluates the candidate?
The candidate's job knowledge, which is the most important aspect, is really evaluated by other managers, who are in the job. (Of course, a candidate for HR dept. could be evaluated by HR manager)
3.Performance Management:
This is yet another area, where the HR manager is greatly under the illusion that he is responsible for and managing this.
Who is doing the performance appraisal? The concerned dept. superior only.
Who is selecting the KPI or KRA? The HR manager is not trained to select apprporiate KRAs for other functions. For example, finance. The HR manager is not competent to say that EBIT is a valid KPI (Unless he has education or expereince in financial management).
Then, what is the role of HR in Performance Management? Just organizing, reminding all the managers that appraisals are to be done, distributing the appraisal forms, collecting back the filled up forms, helplessly reading all the biased appraisals, doing some amount of moderation (it could be a further damage), if there is some scope in the system, compile all the papers, consolidate and present to the CEO, take all the curses/abuses from the CEO because he represents (!) the big salary expectations of all the employees (while the line managers are tactfully behind the scene at this stage, but will take the credit from the employees once increments are granted as per recommendations.), going and looking at the employees to silently convey (how else) he was also a party to the increment granting process.
Then, preparing all the increment orders, signing part of these orders so happily as if he was the deciding authority, forgetting he is signing because other managers are too busy to do this signing ceremony with this piece of paper and this job is therefore given to HR. He can't change any figure in this paper, but has the privilige of choosing some phrases or words of the letter (if CEO agrees after he sees that all these words will not mean any additional expense to the company more than what the figures have already conveyed.).
Then, at last asking his team to file all these confidential (!!!) papers in the respective employee file.
Like this, if you see the role of HR in Compensation, Training or any other function called as HR function, the role is mostly clerical, advisory, secondary, and many times subordinate. :oops:
Your views are welcome, please.
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Hi Jeevan,
Archana has a very valid point,the way you are looking at it is that you would want to be involved or rather track the employees every move which is physically and logically not possible,as you can see the production manager would be incharge of machines which is stationery and easy to monitor,
Where as it is difficult to monitor the HR and therefore there are managers to do the same for us,which means that every body ultimately reports into you but not necessarily directly.
even talking about effective use of people is when we place the mployee in a suitable process where he would be more effective.
And the effective performance would be when we provide training for better performance.
Also when you talk about the marketing manager,the direct translation is
(The objective of marketing manager is making good sales. So, he is handling/managing the market, marketing techniques, and the human resource under him.)
The objective of HR manager is making a good Team. So, he is handling/managing the HR, HR techniques, and the human resource under him,who he would supervise and let you know if there is a problem.
There is a big problem in companies where the HR is too interfering and probes for problems faced,which causes a rift between the employees rather than keeping them happy,as everyone will want to say something and make a big thing over nothing.
So its better we observe from the outside with the info from managers and not be involved in their day to day activities.
This is my opinion feel free to differ
Kavana
From India, Ghaziabad
Archana has a very valid point,the way you are looking at it is that you would want to be involved or rather track the employees every move which is physically and logically not possible,as you can see the production manager would be incharge of machines which is stationery and easy to monitor,
Where as it is difficult to monitor the HR and therefore there are managers to do the same for us,which means that every body ultimately reports into you but not necessarily directly.
even talking about effective use of people is when we place the mployee in a suitable process where he would be more effective.
And the effective performance would be when we provide training for better performance.
Also when you talk about the marketing manager,the direct translation is
(The objective of marketing manager is making good sales. So, he is handling/managing the market, marketing techniques, and the human resource under him.)
The objective of HR manager is making a good Team. So, he is handling/managing the HR, HR techniques, and the human resource under him,who he would supervise and let you know if there is a problem.
There is a big problem in companies where the HR is too interfering and probes for problems faced,which causes a rift between the employees rather than keeping them happy,as everyone will want to say something and make a big thing over nothing.
So its better we observe from the outside with the info from managers and not be involved in their day to day activities.
This is my opinion feel free to differ
Kavana
From India, Ghaziabad
Dear Jeevs,
You dont' wont to look at the true picture and are just trying to vaguely highlight your imaginative approach.
It is very clear that HR is not primarily a direct function and even though Man Power of particular department is worked with functional head, it is the HR department that manages surplus manpower from one department to where necessary, keeping various skills, aptitudes etc. required, keeping in view to have right man at right place at right time; and also to look to the needs and approach of the functional head for the same.
And who do you think conducts the whole process recruitment? To manage a process is management and the final result of that process is fixed if managed properly. Electical engineer cannot be recruited for Civil job, even if CEO wants it that way.
Who lays down codes for Performance appraisal. There are proper scientific tools to measure untangible social scientific elements.
Well for a organisation having less than 10000 employees, and only one unit, HR role can be flexible or what u say clerical, but in large organisations every mm of psycho-sociological aspect is to be considered. :!:
You dont' wont to look at the true picture and are just trying to vaguely highlight your imaginative approach.
It is very clear that HR is not primarily a direct function and even though Man Power of particular department is worked with functional head, it is the HR department that manages surplus manpower from one department to where necessary, keeping various skills, aptitudes etc. required, keeping in view to have right man at right place at right time; and also to look to the needs and approach of the functional head for the same.
And who do you think conducts the whole process recruitment? To manage a process is management and the final result of that process is fixed if managed properly. Electical engineer cannot be recruited for Civil job, even if CEO wants it that way.
Who lays down codes for Performance appraisal. There are proper scientific tools to measure untangible social scientific elements.
Well for a organisation having less than 10000 employees, and only one unit, HR role can be flexible or what u say clerical, but in large organisations every mm of psycho-sociological aspect is to be considered. :!:
Hello Kavana,
It is quite strange that some HR people are under the imagination that,
- They are primarily owning the people of the company;
- They have gracefully allowed the line managers to manage the people on behallf of HR;
- The line managers are responsible only for managing non-living resources;
- It is the HR manager ultimately responsible for managing the people, though they are not directly (!) reporting to the HR manager;
- The HR manager is responsible for people'e performance, compensation, hiring, firing etc.; and,
- The job of HR is controlling.
What is the reality?
No one owns the people in any organization. The people's services are hired by the company for salary. HR dept. is an internal agent, who does the hiring job on behalf of other departments, because they don't have time to do this.
The line managers are not working on behalf of HR manager when they are managing people. It is the other way round.
The HR dept. is not hiring on its own. They can hire only when the needs are raised and approved by the top management, especially the CEO.
The HR manager is neither firing. It is the line manager, who wants to fire an employee. HR is following the procedure for firing and communicates the firing decision to the employee. (HR is always the conduit for bad news.)
The HR manager is not managing the people's performance. He is only maintaining the performance management system, reports the aberrations to other managers for corrective actions to be taken by them.
The HR manager is not managing the compensation. The compensation is dictated by the job market, company's sales (present and future), the CEO's willingness etc. HR manager is only trying to stick to pre-approved salary scales for employees at different levels so that disparity doesn't arise.
When the line managers see that the CEO's decision (say for example, 10% salary cut for all employees, or 15% retrenchment) is hard for them to communicate or implement, or they have difficult employees to face, then they shift the problems to HR calling these issues to be HR issues.
The job of HR is more of a facilitating in nature than controlling.
The HR people should not think they have powers to hire, fire, compensate, manage performance of people, control people.
They are only maintaing the people management system on behalf of the company, its CEO and other managers.
It is like the maintenance department empowered to buy the machines, mainatin the machines, scrap the machines. But, the decisions are taken by other departments. The maintenance dept. might have allotted identification numbers to the machines, have the details of the inventory of capital goods/equipments, shift a machine from one dept. to another, and so on. But, they are not managing the machines. It is the prodcution dept. Likewise, HR dept. is recruiting, giving Id.Nos., creates Employee records, maintains the PMS, terminates the employment contracts for some reasons on behalf of the company, but, but, but, -
Is HR managing the human resource?
If you observe closely, the answer is - ?????
Please re-examine your opinion.
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
It is quite strange that some HR people are under the imagination that,
- They are primarily owning the people of the company;
- They have gracefully allowed the line managers to manage the people on behallf of HR;
- The line managers are responsible only for managing non-living resources;
- It is the HR manager ultimately responsible for managing the people, though they are not directly (!) reporting to the HR manager;
- The HR manager is responsible for people'e performance, compensation, hiring, firing etc.; and,
- The job of HR is controlling.
What is the reality?
No one owns the people in any organization. The people's services are hired by the company for salary. HR dept. is an internal agent, who does the hiring job on behalf of other departments, because they don't have time to do this.
The line managers are not working on behalf of HR manager when they are managing people. It is the other way round.
The HR dept. is not hiring on its own. They can hire only when the needs are raised and approved by the top management, especially the CEO.
The HR manager is neither firing. It is the line manager, who wants to fire an employee. HR is following the procedure for firing and communicates the firing decision to the employee. (HR is always the conduit for bad news.)
The HR manager is not managing the people's performance. He is only maintaining the performance management system, reports the aberrations to other managers for corrective actions to be taken by them.
The HR manager is not managing the compensation. The compensation is dictated by the job market, company's sales (present and future), the CEO's willingness etc. HR manager is only trying to stick to pre-approved salary scales for employees at different levels so that disparity doesn't arise.
When the line managers see that the CEO's decision (say for example, 10% salary cut for all employees, or 15% retrenchment) is hard for them to communicate or implement, or they have difficult employees to face, then they shift the problems to HR calling these issues to be HR issues.
The job of HR is more of a facilitating in nature than controlling.
The HR people should not think they have powers to hire, fire, compensate, manage performance of people, control people.
They are only maintaing the people management system on behalf of the company, its CEO and other managers.
It is like the maintenance department empowered to buy the machines, mainatin the machines, scrap the machines. But, the decisions are taken by other departments. The maintenance dept. might have allotted identification numbers to the machines, have the details of the inventory of capital goods/equipments, shift a machine from one dept. to another, and so on. But, they are not managing the machines. It is the prodcution dept. Likewise, HR dept. is recruiting, giving Id.Nos., creates Employee records, maintains the PMS, terminates the employment contracts for some reasons on behalf of the company, but, but, but, -
Is HR managing the human resource?
If you observe closely, the answer is - ?????
Please re-examine your opinion.
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Dear Aby, Well. What are your comments about the articles that I have attached? Your view may be right. But, your arguments are not enough to support. Jeevan.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Hi Jeevan
It is true that HR managers do not directly manage people in an organisation. All employees surely dont report to the HR manager,they cant, dont have to. Thus the prime role of any HR mangers is to see that all mangers in the organisation become their own people managers. And the mangers you refer are themselves part of Human resources.
Apart from the processes that come under HR functions an HR managers role is to help evolve a culture ( as sam mentioned) and climate for highperforming and satisfied employees,to see that all reporting Heads know how to deal with people issues atleast the smaller ones. There is no point in arguing, what we should discuss is what role HR can play apart from traditional ones. You may refer HR as facilitator but surely HR can be much more then a facilitator we only need to think & show willingness.
I have witnessed some times that discussions start becoming hot and personal, which i believe should be avoided
Thanks
From India, Mumbai
It is true that HR managers do not directly manage people in an organisation. All employees surely dont report to the HR manager,they cant, dont have to. Thus the prime role of any HR mangers is to see that all mangers in the organisation become their own people managers. And the mangers you refer are themselves part of Human resources.
Apart from the processes that come under HR functions an HR managers role is to help evolve a culture ( as sam mentioned) and climate for highperforming and satisfied employees,to see that all reporting Heads know how to deal with people issues atleast the smaller ones. There is no point in arguing, what we should discuss is what role HR can play apart from traditional ones. You may refer HR as facilitator but surely HR can be much more then a facilitator we only need to think & show willingness.
I have witnessed some times that discussions start becoming hot and personal, which i believe should be avoided
Thanks
From India, Mumbai
HI Jeeva,
Per my understanding Human Resource Manager's have differenct roles to play . Sometimes they act as facilitators or resources, sometimes like lawsuit help them manage the relation, like economist forecast the employee and inturn Company's growth and since we have different roles with time we are left unidentified.
The project manager appreciates the sucess with his team and rewards the team, have you seen anyone in the Industry ever rewarding an HR Professionals for getting them the best resources, working towards Employee and inturn Company Integrity. This holds good even for all your said examples.
I define HR Manager as unsung heros.
regards,
Veena Jain
98807-87887
From India, Bangalore
Per my understanding Human Resource Manager's have differenct roles to play . Sometimes they act as facilitators or resources, sometimes like lawsuit help them manage the relation, like economist forecast the employee and inturn Company's growth and since we have different roles with time we are left unidentified.
The project manager appreciates the sucess with his team and rewards the team, have you seen anyone in the Industry ever rewarding an HR Professionals for getting them the best resources, working towards Employee and inturn Company Integrity. This holds good even for all your said examples.
I define HR Manager as unsung heros.
regards,
Veena Jain
98807-87887
From India, Bangalore
Dear Veena,
You are right.
The HR manager (his designation could be GM or VP..) stands with the CEO mostly and is therefore viewed with envy or sometimes jealousy. He assumes different roles as may be needed by the CEO or the critical circumstances of the company. He fights, struggles, keeps lot of patience, takes all the curses from everywhere - all for the CEO/the company. And, as you said finally he is unsung hero.
Why? How do we change this?
Dear Avikasit,
My arguments may be strong, but not hot or personal. I really want strong points that would go a long way to prove the important role of HR, redefine the role, clarify to everyone beyond doubt.
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
You are right.
The HR manager (his designation could be GM or VP..) stands with the CEO mostly and is therefore viewed with envy or sometimes jealousy. He assumes different roles as may be needed by the CEO or the critical circumstances of the company. He fights, struggles, keeps lot of patience, takes all the curses from everywhere - all for the CEO/the company. And, as you said finally he is unsung hero.
Why? How do we change this?
Dear Avikasit,
My arguments may be strong, but not hot or personal. I really want strong points that would go a long way to prove the important role of HR, redefine the role, clarify to everyone beyond doubt.
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
152120-very-use ful-hr-manageme nt-software-bui lt-excel-psa-hr -manager-mainta in-payrrol-exce l-soft.zip
Anand Kumar- HR Manager.doc