HR balancing act - business partner / employee advocate

I'm not upset but I find it interesting that 3 people have picked up on the words Employee Advocate and responded by saying that isn't how we see the role of HR.

Regarding the CIPD's mission statement, I would say that the CIPD isn't an HR professional. It isn't "doing" HR. Its mission and role are not the same as the mission or role of an HR Department or stand-alone professional. The CIPD has a campaigning role which few HR professionals have. It sets the standards for levels of professional qualifications ... ... I could go on but I'm sure you take the point. When we take a job, we aren't doing so to champion better work and working lives.

Obviously, we wouldn't expect the input of an HR professional to an organisation to result in worse working lives, but whenever we are working to improve conditions in an organisation, it is generally in order to further its better working, which is why organisations allocate budget to have HR people on the staff.

I say "generally" because I have never had to work anywhere that conditions were so poor that there was a moral imperative to improve them although, it came out not so long ago that there were garment factories in the UK paying less than the minimum wage. Maybe that is an example of a time when we need to step up as Employee Advocates but even then, the reason to advocate for the employees would be to stop the organisation from breaking the law. You could see it as an example of being an Employee Advocate, or as risk detection and mitigation for the business. However you characterise it, it is in the organisation's interest for the HR person to inform the board that they are breaking the law and what the consequences may be, legal and human and it is the HR person's duty to their employer to do this so I don't see that there are two contradictory roles which need to be balanced.

I'm not commenting on The HR Value Proposition as I couldn't add anything to Ray's post.

You've not upset anyone, Karin. Enjoying the debate :)

As you said here, I always recall...

At end of the day you are a tool of management not an employee representative.

:-)

I've always found debates like this an interesting read. It seems to come up every now and again. 

As David Perryputs it, "I was generally on the side of those who pay me. Which of course is why we get paid." Equally, to quote Elizabeth Divver, "we wouldn't expect the input of an HR professional to an organisation to result in worse working lives..."

Cue, the Profession Map - "The profession should have people at its heart".

Steve Bridger said:

Cue, the Profession Map - "The profession should have people at its heart".

Perhaps people in its heart but the business in its head....

Whisper it... but yes.

Why whisper it? HR people are business professionals are they not?