Hi All,
It is definitely thr HR which is managing the HUman Resource. Consider the HR whose associated with the process or a particular Line of Business. He's definitely handling the grievances and policy related issues of employees. Any issues relating employees come through HR be it counseling or workplace issues.
Mallet.
From India, Hyderabad
40It is definitely thr HR which is managing the HUman Resource. Consider the HR whose associated with the process or a particular Line of Business. He's definitely handling the grievances and policy related issues of employees. Any issues relating employees come through HR be it counseling or workplace issues.
Mallet.
From India, Hyderabad
Hi Peter,
The silent watch dog role that you have assigned to the HR Manager is understandable. But, who decides in the organization that this watchdog's silence is to cease at a moment? Who is the master of this dog in your opinion?
And, why should the HR Manager be only a watchdog tied to a corner, not participating in the events actively? Should he remain aloof almost always? Bark or bite only when something goes wrong?
Your further views, please.
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
The silent watch dog role that you have assigned to the HR Manager is understandable. But, who decides in the organization that this watchdog's silence is to cease at a moment? Who is the master of this dog in your opinion?
And, why should the HR Manager be only a watchdog tied to a corner, not participating in the events actively? Should he remain aloof almost always? Bark or bite only when something goes wrong?
Your further views, please.
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Dear Jeev,
Your query remind me of my school days.
I had to ask a written apology for translating "Jo Garajte Hai Baraste Nahin" to "Barking Dogs Seldom Bite", Our Teacher taking it literally.
The term Watchdog has nothing to do with BARK N BITE and the terminology of Master and Slave have been long replaced by Employer and Employee, and this is the basic function of HR in a very wider sense.
Looks like you have the answers but try framing difficult q's for them, but the method used by you has very denegrating words. Don't mind, but your past posts clearly indicate that you are not at all satisfied with the phenomenon called HR and you have been very much suppressed in being in this field. Your superiors must not be very nice with you and you got to learn the difference between a tail wagging dog and an Employee, to earn and give, what shall make you satisfied in the Corporate World.
God Bless You!
Your query remind me of my school days.
I had to ask a written apology for translating "Jo Garajte Hai Baraste Nahin" to "Barking Dogs Seldom Bite", Our Teacher taking it literally.
The term Watchdog has nothing to do with BARK N BITE and the terminology of Master and Slave have been long replaced by Employer and Employee, and this is the basic function of HR in a very wider sense.
Looks like you have the answers but try framing difficult q's for them, but the method used by you has very denegrating words. Don't mind, but your past posts clearly indicate that you are not at all satisfied with the phenomenon called HR and you have been very much suppressed in being in this field. Your superiors must not be very nice with you and you got to learn the difference between a tail wagging dog and an Employee, to earn and give, what shall make you satisfied in the Corporate World.
God Bless You!
Dear Aby,
Let me tell you that I am very proud to be in the HR profession and I am a happy professional.
It is not that I am supressed in this filed. I am personally a successful person. Indeed, the field is suppressed irrespective of whether you are aware of it or not and as you could see there is tremendous awakening in this filed by the HR professionals across the country. It is suppressed because it is emerging as a movement rather than as a profession. It is emerging as an evolution rather than as a phenomenon.
Will you not agree that HR is mostly used as the CEO's mouthpiece, becomes scapegoat when people are to be blamed or fired en masse, suffers the blows from the line managers, gets its role interpreted as per the wishes of the CEO or other key personnel in the organization?????
If we all think everything is fine with HR everywhere, then we are heading for extinction, I think. And this would be at a point of time when we have promising future.
Please see closely. The degenarative words are not mine. What wider sense would you give to the watchdog anology? Why this anology at all? Whatever you say, watchdog reminds me of only a reactive role, not a proactive one. It reminds me of 'silent observation', 'reacting occassionally to deviations when found' etc. What more?
I am only reminding the low self-esteem contained in some persons expressions. I am only pointing out to the presumptions reflecting in some statements made by our HR colleagues assuming a superior role in the organization. What good it would do, if we all tell HR is great, HR is the manager of the people, and such things, without the understanding of the issues involved, the reactions of the business world to HR profession?
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Let me tell you that I am very proud to be in the HR profession and I am a happy professional.
It is not that I am supressed in this filed. I am personally a successful person. Indeed, the field is suppressed irrespective of whether you are aware of it or not and as you could see there is tremendous awakening in this filed by the HR professionals across the country. It is suppressed because it is emerging as a movement rather than as a profession. It is emerging as an evolution rather than as a phenomenon.
Will you not agree that HR is mostly used as the CEO's mouthpiece, becomes scapegoat when people are to be blamed or fired en masse, suffers the blows from the line managers, gets its role interpreted as per the wishes of the CEO or other key personnel in the organization?????
If we all think everything is fine with HR everywhere, then we are heading for extinction, I think. And this would be at a point of time when we have promising future.
Please see closely. The degenarative words are not mine. What wider sense would you give to the watchdog anology? Why this anology at all? Whatever you say, watchdog reminds me of only a reactive role, not a proactive one. It reminds me of 'silent observation', 'reacting occassionally to deviations when found' etc. What more?
I am only reminding the low self-esteem contained in some persons expressions. I am only pointing out to the presumptions reflecting in some statements made by our HR colleagues assuming a superior role in the organization. What good it would do, if we all tell HR is great, HR is the manager of the people, and such things, without the understanding of the issues involved, the reactions of the business world to HR profession?
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Hi Peter,
I want to tell at the outset that I have personally very good regard for Aby as I have read some of the postings from this professional colleague.
Sometimes, in our discussions we tend to use certain terms such as 'wider sense', 'holistic approach', 'integrated approach', 'comprehensive manner' etc. when we are short of giving sepcific solutions to specific issues. This is a general tendency to which I also may not be exceptional. The moment we ask ourselves as to what do we really mean by such terms, we start thinking and try to add again more generalistic terms to describe what we meant, realizing well that the ground is slipping under our feet.
That apart, not only HR professionals but any executive is generally very happy to be called or to call himself / herself as 'watchdog' of the company. This goes well more with Finance / Internal audit departments, who generally have auditory powers on all departments on a matter felt more important - the money.
Such title gives him the great feeling that he is priviliged to freely suspect everyone, can selectively throw criticism/distrust on anyone at the sight of some strange happenings / findings and he is the one vested with this power and is greatly trusted with by the organization for doing this job.
I strongly feel that HR management is strenghtened by fostering mutual trust, irrespective of any number of disappointments you may come across in people-relations under worksettings. As you know, HR is about taking lot of initiatives, promoting learning, being proactive, developing people, not only monitoring the performance but also improving the performance of the people. I really do not understand how the watchdog anology gells with HR role.
Also, as I have told already, the watchdog role is being,
- mostly watching than acting;
- passive;
- behind the scene and not on the stage;
- reactive;
- responsive to aberrations but not responsible for corrective action;
- suspecting; and
- just ensuring compliance with rules set by someone else, but not participating in policy framing.
I request you to please think whether you would like to accept this kind of role for HR. Or, do you have any other definition for 'watchdog' role.
If we:
- do not accept criticisms (that sometimes may be sharp);
- do not accept contradictory view points;
- refuse to see the ground reality;
- refuse to accept the perceptions prevailing about our profession in various industries;
- think that we are great just because we are people's managers;
- be happy that our CEOs / line managers are nice to us (but do not involve us in key business decisions and strategies);
- be complacent and content with the powers (more perceived than real) that we seem to have (for recruiting / terminating / disciplining people);
- do not want to come out of our 'comfort zone';
then, it is upto us to decide whether to remain as watchdog or become a warrior.
(The meaning of Warrior here is 'One who is energetically engaged in an activity for a cause'.)
I do not want to win my arguments, but would like to strongly put forth some views for your thoughts. That's all.
Cheers,
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
I want to tell at the outset that I have personally very good regard for Aby as I have read some of the postings from this professional colleague.
Sometimes, in our discussions we tend to use certain terms such as 'wider sense', 'holistic approach', 'integrated approach', 'comprehensive manner' etc. when we are short of giving sepcific solutions to specific issues. This is a general tendency to which I also may not be exceptional. The moment we ask ourselves as to what do we really mean by such terms, we start thinking and try to add again more generalistic terms to describe what we meant, realizing well that the ground is slipping under our feet.
That apart, not only HR professionals but any executive is generally very happy to be called or to call himself / herself as 'watchdog' of the company. This goes well more with Finance / Internal audit departments, who generally have auditory powers on all departments on a matter felt more important - the money.
Such title gives him the great feeling that he is priviliged to freely suspect everyone, can selectively throw criticism/distrust on anyone at the sight of some strange happenings / findings and he is the one vested with this power and is greatly trusted with by the organization for doing this job.
I strongly feel that HR management is strenghtened by fostering mutual trust, irrespective of any number of disappointments you may come across in people-relations under worksettings. As you know, HR is about taking lot of initiatives, promoting learning, being proactive, developing people, not only monitoring the performance but also improving the performance of the people. I really do not understand how the watchdog anology gells with HR role.
Also, as I have told already, the watchdog role is being,
- mostly watching than acting;
- passive;
- behind the scene and not on the stage;
- reactive;
- responsive to aberrations but not responsible for corrective action;
- suspecting; and
- just ensuring compliance with rules set by someone else, but not participating in policy framing.
I request you to please think whether you would like to accept this kind of role for HR. Or, do you have any other definition for 'watchdog' role.
If we:
- do not accept criticisms (that sometimes may be sharp);
- do not accept contradictory view points;
- refuse to see the ground reality;
- refuse to accept the perceptions prevailing about our profession in various industries;
- think that we are great just because we are people's managers;
- be happy that our CEOs / line managers are nice to us (but do not involve us in key business decisions and strategies);
- be complacent and content with the powers (more perceived than real) that we seem to have (for recruiting / terminating / disciplining people);
- do not want to come out of our 'comfort zone';
then, it is upto us to decide whether to remain as watchdog or become a warrior.
(The meaning of Warrior here is 'One who is energetically engaged in an activity for a cause'.)
I do not want to win my arguments, but would like to strongly put forth some views for your thoughts. That's all.
Cheers,
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
Hi jeeva,
You said an HR manager is recruiting people and handing them over to
the other departments and then terminating them and letting them out and this is not the actual HR job.
But if you clearly notice the designation is Human Resourse Manager
There is a very crucial thing that this manager is handling.
It includes---
Checking out the need of human resources in the organization, tracing for the suitable resources, scrutinizing their capability as to be an asset for the org, and then handing them over to the respective department.
So these functions involve the basic function of any manager coz manager is himself a person who plans, organizes,directs, implements and controls. This is what an Hr manager is doing .
Apart from this ever the project manager, the finance manager and any one else other than the board of directors are the recruitments made by HR. Meanwhile an organization is full of human resourses who perform different functions and the its the duty of the HR manager to coordinate
with all the different departments to ensure smooth working of that department.
Appending it- all the salaries, performance appraisals, greviences,refreshment activities, policy making , employee relations are also the other functions that an HR deals with .
With all these -- any person who is responsible for making the smooth functioning of the organization providing an healthy environment in the work place is a HR manager and this role is crucial
Sapan
From India, Ahmadabad
You said an HR manager is recruiting people and handing them over to
the other departments and then terminating them and letting them out and this is not the actual HR job.
But if you clearly notice the designation is Human Resourse Manager
There is a very crucial thing that this manager is handling.
It includes---
Checking out the need of human resources in the organization, tracing for the suitable resources, scrutinizing their capability as to be an asset for the org, and then handing them over to the respective department.
So these functions involve the basic function of any manager coz manager is himself a person who plans, organizes,directs, implements and controls. This is what an Hr manager is doing .
Apart from this ever the project manager, the finance manager and any one else other than the board of directors are the recruitments made by HR. Meanwhile an organization is full of human resourses who perform different functions and the its the duty of the HR manager to coordinate
with all the different departments to ensure smooth working of that department.
Appending it- all the salaries, performance appraisals, greviences,refreshment activities, policy making , employee relations are also the other functions that an HR deals with .
With all these -- any person who is responsible for making the smooth functioning of the organization providing an healthy environment in the work place is a HR manager and this role is crucial
Sapan
From India, Ahmadabad
Dear Aby,
After giving a serious thought over your mail again, I feel like stating the following -
If a professional:
> Is able to be very comfortable with his present;
> Is treated nicely by everyone around him;
> Is not criticised;
> Is not suppressed by competition;
> Has never faced crisis, struggles, humiliations, ill-treatments in his career;
> Is able to walk with his head always up in the sky;
> Is able to feel secure and safe;
> Is not required to check whether the fundamental rules of his game are changing;
then, he must be a very lucky guy. However, I would suggest that he reads the book 'ONLY THE PARANOID SURVIVE' written by Andrew S. Grove, President & CEO of Intel Corporation.
Regards,
Jeevan
From India, Bangalore
After giving a serious thought over your mail again, I feel like stating the following -
If a professional:
> Is able to be very comfortable with his present;
> Is treated nicely by everyone around him;
> Is not criticised;
> Is not suppressed by competition;
> Has never faced crisis, struggles, humiliations, ill-treatments in his career;
> Is able to walk with his head always up in the sky;
> Is able to feel secure and safe;
> Is not required to check whether the fundamental rules of his game are changing;
then, he must be a very lucky guy. However, I would suggest that he reads the book 'ONLY THE PARANOID SURVIVE' written by Andrew S. Grove, President & CEO of Intel Corporation.
Regards,
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