I don’t really like doing posts on my current ministry/organization, but there’s been a change recently that I’m so thankful for that I can’t help but address it. I’m also choosing to post because it connects to some pretty common leadership dynamics.
I have worked for the last year and a half in an “HR” (Human Resources) job title in a national capacity. I spent a lot of time in the years prior in the HR world in many ways as well. Because of this, when I watch TV, I’m always fascinated how “HR” is portrayed. In the “CSI” shows, the general HR function is demonstrated most often by “IAB” (Internal Affairs Bureau). They are the in house police and accountability to make sure that policies are followed, the law is honored, and the public trust is not violated. But more often than not – they are treated with contempt, disdain, and resentment by those who feel like they are only slowing the work down or getting in the way of what needs to be done.
In “The Office,” who is public enemy #1 for boss man, Michael Scott? That’s right – it’s HR rep Toby. Michael has tried framing him for drug use, firing him, and pretty much trying to exclude him from everything. Why? Because Toby functions as organizational accountability and often has to say “No” to what Michael wants. Michael sees Toby no more as a wet blanket. A lot of people out there have similar feelings because they don’t like hearing “no” organizationally.
The branch (my branch) of the campus ministry, which has been called “Human Resources” has been aptly renamed “Leadership Development.” This has been in the works for a little bit but went public this week. I’m quite thankful because the stated reasons match what has been an unspoken tension for a long time. Other lanes of the ministry were frankly more empowered and had more clout because of organizational history and structures. While Human Resources was intended to serve as an equally empowered voice in the ministry, when push came to shove – HR was often expected to be an exclusively administrative function and more often than not across the nation many people within human resources began to live out what others expected them to be – support staff rather than legitimate leaders.
I recently discussed some of this with a leader who was part of the organizational design currently employed by my ministry and ironically he told me that part of the initial vision was to have HR be more or less the strongest presence in the room because of the organization’s previous bias towards field strategy. In many cases, this intended vision played out, but most often HR was relegated to support staff or admin duties as opposed to genuine influence and leadership. The degree is often dictated by the level of relationship, character, and trust among the leaders in the room. Sometimes that quotient is high, often it is a lot lower.
There are companies in which HR is not intended to be anything but administration. The problem is some people will always take those attitudes from other contexts and use them to fuel their own sense of who’s empowered to do what in ours. HR’s role in leadership development and influence was more clear in its design and intentions within our organizational framework, but it grew quite ambiguous in its execution and its reinforcement due to personal preferences or maybe more accurately – personal limitations. I want to be clear here that I’m being more critical of a culture at large than any specific individuals. Big organizations are tough to steer a different direction and while certain things have been communicated and put on paper, consistent progress towards some of these stated objectives has often been found wanting.
Now I don’t want to communicate that HR gets steamrolled in our ministry. I don’t believe this to be the case, and given our structures and the regionalization – there are dozens of different environments that influence protocals. However, in multiple settings, I’ve seen tensions that I believe are anchored in some of these typical attitudes toward Human Resources. When Human Resources is “slowing things down” or functioning, especially as advocates of those without an organizational voice – tensions tend to mount. That’s when people’s true colors shine through.
A re-naming of our lane “leadership development” is a step towards empowering us former “HR” folk to serve as advocates of those without an organizational voice and develop the capacity of leaders at all levels of the ministry. Name changes are only just that, but when the name change brings us closer to our vision and values at least it’s a reason for hope. The “Leadership Development” lane is now a little bit freer to work in true partnership with other ministry lanes because it’s now free from the limiting “HR-types” of Internal Affairs or The Office’s “Toby.”
You may have read this and have no idea what I’m talking about. That’s ok. In my world, this feels rather big. HR has to some degree been set up to be a scapegoat in the system and this is a big step to bring things back into focus. It gives me some hope, but we’ll see how this new clarity gets lived out. Today I’m optimistic about the direction some of my leaders are setting.
