Deep Dive into the HR Mindset: What Does it Mean for Reward Pros?

An interesting look in the mirror, data-wise.

Little over a month ago, HRx Analysts, a strategic partnership of HRExaminer and Starr Tincup, released a new report What HR Thinks and Feels.  Based on over 1,000 respondents to an enormous (250 questions) survey over a 2 year period, the report summarized the first layer of an enormous database of HR lifestyles, attitudes, political alignments, sales orientations, career choices, etc. 

The findings have ignited a lot of discussion and debate within HR circles.  I'd like to bring some of this over to the compensation community and see what implications - if any - we believe they have for reward professionals and our work.  Special thanks go out to HRExaminer founder and editor-in-chief John Sumser, who took a few minutes out of his jammed schedule to talk about the study with me.

Of the findings highlighted below, some may surprise you, some probably won't.  John notes that there is little to no difference in these findings across the different HR silos, so we should assume that they all apply to comp and benefits pros as much as any other HR specialty.

HR is Female

HR, according to the HRExaminer article about the study, is a 47 year old white woman; women occupy two thirds of HR executive seats. What does it mean that HR is the only predominantly female function in the contemporary organization?  What are the implications, if any, of having employee rewards being designed and managed by a fundamentally female function?  Does it present challenges, real or perceived, in the reward work we do for or the support we offer to functions that are predominantly male?

HR is Exceptionally Credential-Oriented

45% of the people in HR have advanced degrees and another virtually non-overlapping 48% have some kind of nationally recognized certification.  Exceptional?  As John tells it, this is five times the national average (9% of Americans have an advanced degree) and three times what you see in disciplines like Marketing or Engineering.  Does this reflect, as he hypothesizes, the fact that HR is the beach head of accomplishment for women trying to move into the executive suite and therefore full of people who want all the documentation necessary to prove their credibility?  Would this impact the way we view - and our efforts to encourage or even incent - skill and competency development?  How about our perspective on job valuation and the elements of work that bring the most value to the table?

HR Is Relatively Self-Impressed

Study results suggest that we rate ourselves as uniformly very good across a wide range of competencies - from budgeting to strategic planning to technology implementation.  Does this self-perception match reality or the impression that our peers in other functions have of our competence?  Are we able to see ourselves and our capabilities in an objective light?  If not, how can we help employees with this challenge?

HR Has an Observable Distaste for Team Sports

Participation in team sports?  Pretty much nil among respondents.  Like Josh LeTourneau in his FOT post on the research, I found this to be a bit of a mind blower.  It may be, as John notes, a demographic and generational thing as much as a matter of distaste.  If HR is indeed a 47 year old female, there were likely limited team sport opportunities available to her during her formative years.  But it the team sports metaphor is the backbone of the modern organization, as some suggest, does this put many of us at a disadvantage?  Do we get the team sports dynamics and hinges in organizational culture and behavior?  Or are we stuck in a parallel and potentially disconnected worldview of team?  If and where so, what would that mean for our ability to effectively discern, measure and reward what teams do in the workplace?

So, compadres, what's your reaction?  What questions to these findings raise for you?  What can we draw and apply from this research to be better at what we do?

I look forward to the conversation!

Ann Bares is the Founder and Editor of the Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting services to a wide range of client organizations.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School and is a bookhound and aspiring cook in her spare time.  Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.

Comments

[Darren Bond]

Very interesting study and article. Having spent the final five years of my career in HR (having been at the telco for thirty years), I do recognize the overall profile described.

Some of the smartest and most insightful people I had ever come into contact with were residing in HR, and they were keenly aware of the role of "people" in making the business successful.

At the same time, I often felt that there was almost an inferiority complex at play. That is, there was always the talk of "the business" as if it was something separate. If it "takes a village to raise a child," it takes a village of departments to make an organization successful. HR is - or should be - a full member of the team (even though it talks about the importance of teams but doesn't really like them...!).

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

That fits with the "process" orientation of most HR folk as opposed to an "output" focus. There frequently seems to be more interest in how things are done than in the actual results produced.