norman turkington

and associates

  • Home

  • Services

  • Psychology

  • About Us

  • Tools

  • Video & Blogs

  • Contact

  • Blog

  • Contact

      02 9482 7704
      theoffice@ntatoday.com
      • Facebook Social Icon
      • Twitter Social Icon
      • YouTube Social  Icon
      • LinkedIn Social Icon
      • Google+ Social Icon
      Amalgmation
      Change
      Leadership

      Who should HR report to in times of significant change?

      March 21, 2016

      |

      Norm Turkington

       

      In recent months I have been more intimately involved in the New South Wales Council amalgamation process.  Over the last few months, together with a colleague from the IR world, I  have been meeting many of the senior staff associated with the proposed amalgamations.  There has been an exceptionally high engagement from those attending the workshops and wanting as much information on the ‘road ahead’ as possible. 

       

      My colleague from IR has an exceptional knowledge of the legislation and the Award and is rarely unable to answer the most difficult of questions, and there have been many. 

       

      My observation and focus was different and not legally based.  My focus has been on the people and their psychological and emotional wellbeing. 

       

      Yes, I did discuss models of change together with a review of the likely areas of resistance they might face as the change proper approaches. My thoughts were always underpinned by some simple truths, some of which are written in the various instruction documents issued by the Office of Local Government and the peak employers association, LGNSW, some gathered from many years working in this area of change.  Some of the first ‘truths’ presented are:

      • “Organisations don’t change – people do”, Dr Carol Goman, How to manage people through continuous change

      • “our staff are our most important asset”, a values statement of most organisations

      • “a responsive and cooperative approach to workforce and workplace management is essential at all times, but becomes even more important at time of change”, LGNSW Workplace Reform Kit.

      These and many more statements of a similar kind state what many would accept as both wise and correct judgements about the importance of the staff engagement in any change. 

       

      With all the forgoing I come to my point of concern.  The department primarily responsible for the staff engagement is the Human Resources department – and many newer names such as Workforce and Culture, People and Development, etc.  What I have found is that more often than not the HR department is not reporting directly to the General Manager (CEO in some instances) but through another department to the GM. 

       

      This does not make sense at all.  The one manager responsible for all the staff and staff matters across the whole organisation is not reporting directly to and is not an integral part of the executive team. 

       

      Imagine if the Director of Engineering reported through the Finance Director, or the Corporate Governance Director reported through the Director Engineering (after all, the Director Engineering probably has over 50% of the staff in their directorate).  Both, you might agree, are silly propositions.  Then why is it the case that the Manager HR (or similar so named), who is responsible for all the employees (not just a percentage), is not reporting as part of the Executive Team? 

       

      If this Change is to work well, make no mistake, it will be the people who make it happen across the entire organisation.  A wise GM (CEO) would ensure they are fully informed and advised by those best placed to do so and I strongly argue that their HR manager must report to them in these significant times of change.  To do otherwise would send the message that the staff are indeed, a secondary consideration for the organisation.

       

      It is also worth considering the signals sent by a wise and informed GM when the HR manager is reporting directly to the GM and executive.  Some of those signals might be:

      • HR is responsible for all staff, therefore advice about staff matters must transcend Divisional perspectives

      • Staff are important to me and I want their best interests considered in all decisions

      • Of fundamental importance to our success is the organisational culture and I want the person responsible for its nurture and development reporting directly to me

      • How we treat our staff is of upmost importance, and will hold the manager HR responsible to ensure all are treated with dignity and respect

      • An organisation committed to health and wellbeing will ensure that all staff have access to appropriate programs and opportunities, this is an HR responsibility

      • Talent management is administered by the HR department and the GM needs to be closely and visibly associated with this program

      The coming months and possibly years will be a demanding time on those staff responsible to make the amalgamation (or boundary adjustment) work.  It will be people who make it work, or not, as the case might be.  The single department which needs to be across all of the organisations activities associated with the amalgamation is the HR department.  The manager of HR must, therefore, be a part of the executive team and report directly to the GM. 

       

      Anything less sends a message that people are not quite as important as the policies, processes and procedures in the organisation.

       

      Norm Turkington

      www.ntatoday.com

       

       

       

      .

       

       

       

       

       

      Please reload

      Featured Posts

      Resilience - Do you bend or break?

      November 2, 2017

      Resilience - Do you bend or break?

      December 4, 2015

      Mental Health at Work in Australia

      November 2, 2017

      1/10
      Please reload

      Recent Posts

      What makes a committed team?

      July 10, 2018

      What motivates staff at work?

      November 21, 2017

      How to improve your Middle Managers?

      November 13, 2017

      Mental Health at Work in Australia

      November 2, 2017

      Resilience - Do you bend or break?

      November 2, 2017

      Managing Remote Teams

      October 11, 2017

      Dignity & Respect At Work (D.R.A.W.)

      September 2, 2017

      5 Dysfunctions of a Team

      August 8, 2017

      How to improve your Middle Managers?

      April 18, 2017

      What motivates staff at work?

      April 5, 2017

      Please reload

      Search By Tags

      Change

      High Performing Teams

      Leadership

      Management

      amalgamations

      amalgmation

      behaviour

      bullying

      change

      change management

      coaching

      consultative committee

      culture

      dignity

      dignity and respect

      facilitation

      fit for the future

      groupthink

      harassment

      high performing teams

      hogan

      leadership

      leadershipo

      leading change

      learning solutions

      management

      mental health

      mentoring

      motivation

      norm turkington

      norman turkington

      nsw Councils

      nsw councils

      ntatoday

      nurture achieve train

      positive psychology

      psychology

      psychometric testing

      recruitment

      remote team

      resilience

      respect

      staff committee

      team

      team development

      training

      trust

      turkington

      wellbeing

      workplace

      workplace change

      Please reload

      Follow Us
      • Facebook Classic
      • Twitter Classic
      • Google Classic

                     

       

      ntatoday ©2015