Have you seen any signs of progress after 12 months?

The culture appears ingrained - so with all these great projects you have been working on - have they made any difference to the way the HR function is perceived? Normally with that list people would be saying wow HR is doing some great things.

You say you are a large international company but is HR you alone or is there more of a team - if so, how do they approach their job. Are they on this journey with you or do they continue to offer tea and sympathy at every opportunity? If it's just you then you might have more luck changing it, but it won't be easy. (also, if you are a large company and only you that kind of shows their investment...)

If you had to list the 3 things that have really driven the business in the last year that you did what would they be? Would they be things the business valued or would they fall into the box of "necessary evils" (policies, paperwork systems etc). Can you articulate how you have made the business a better place?

You need to have a long realistic discussion with your boss - they see some of your ideas as being unrealistic and too sensitive. What's their vision for HR - do they want what you want to offer and if so are they prepared to back you up? My guess is probably the vision is different and when push comes to shove, they won't back you up either because they don't get "it" or they disagree with where you think they should go.

Why are they making decisions after a year still without you? What is it about the culture or your approach that means you still can't get round the decision table?

For what it's worth no one has ever accused me of being fluffy or even asked me to hold the tissues. (That won't come as a surprise to many on here :-) ). But I have also sought out environments and leaders who value commercial pragmatic forward thinking HR solutions.

So I would (a) have a discussion with my boss and (b) take a look at what if any real progress I had made in last 12 months and then decide if this organisation was a losing battle for the sort of HR professional you want to be. But as part of that be realistic in what you have done and how you have influenced otherwise you will end up in the same situation elsewhere.

Good luck

I wonder if there is a way to reposition this slightly - or redirect it - to allow your contribution to be recognised.

I have frequently shared your frustration with HR being perceived in this way. But the longer I've done this job, the more I recognise that spending time with people and building trust, enables me to achieve a lot more with strategic and operational plans than the most beautifully crafted documents. If that time spent establishing trust (which could be supporting people when they need it the most, taking time to understand their career ambitions, or sorting out a grievance before it gets to a formal stage) makes me 'fluffy' then so be it - I am also firm enough to be clear about what needs to be done and why.

And just to ask the obvious, would they ever refer to a man in your role as 'fluffy'? And assuming they would not, challenge them on the language they are choosing and using, and why.

Good luck!

In reply to Keith:

Thank-you for your response Keith. I have seen signs of progress, but for every step forward I take, within days I can be pushed a further five steps back. All it takes is for one senior employee to break the process and the rest follow. I do hear phrases such as 'it's typical for the industry' and 'that's just the way'. It seems many individuals within the company enjoy the aspect of being able to mess things up without taking any sort of consequence/responsibility. Hence, why they may see HR as a disadvantage to this, as it means supporting the business to do the best it can.

For the time being, the HR department is me. I have been advised to look at a GAP analysis to understand where further support is required.

You've highlighted 'necessary evils' and that's been a great 'lightbulb moment', but
I need to consider how to change this viewpoint. Increasing productivity, reducing agency fees, supporting the company from reputational damage, remaining legally compliant. I do think many leaders have lost the passion to improve. When I joined, I saw it as a huge opportunity with exposure to international employment laws. For others in the company, the desire to make it a better place, was lost a long time ago!

I do need to consider my approach moving forwards less of 'what do you think' and more of 'this is the risks attached and this is the plan to support this...' without being the police...

I'll be arranging a meeting end of this week early the next, to understand the expectations and if remaining will allow me to grow individually alongside my studies or lose sight of what true HR professionalism looks like.

Thank-you.

In reply to Nina Waters:

Thank-you Nina, great feedback - and I agree with the final comment. I have worked in two male-dominated industries many of which in meetings I have been the only woman at the table. It does place that question in my mind when reflecting on the conversations. I will challenge the language moving forwards and request them to expand then and there.

In reply to Annabelle:

Hi Annabelle

Well used personally to this syndrome in past working environments. Came to realise that most management colleagues therein have to cope daily with potential disasters and to interact with and to achieve influence in a Hobbesian ‘nasty brutish and short’ working world. No automatic respect; no social niceties - you need to convince them that you can be effective in helping them survive in their world, which may well be somewhat alien to your own. Doing so can take some time and / or get pretty ‘eventful’ but stand your ground / give as good as you get and you may well eventually become part of the team.

When you say "large", how large are we talking?

For an international company of more than, say, 250 employees to have on strength a single HR practitioner would be very retrograde, but also speaks to the root of the issue: that the Board fundamentally doesn't value the strategic contribution of HR to the bottom line.

I would definitely challenge the use of the word "fluffy" (which historically has often been preceded by the words "pink and...") in the context of your work. It is sexist and belittling and betrays more about the attitudes of those that use it than they might be comfortable realizing. Having raised it with your director (I'm guess FD?), I would seek their support in explicitly challenging its use by other directors and senior staff.

That said, if this is a truly large company (500+) I would be quite inclined in your position to just be looking for my next role. You've got the "international HR" professional tick from this job that will open many new doors to you, not to mention the many practical projects you've implemented and upon which you can draw in your CV and interviews. So perhaps the best way to show them how much they rely on good HR support is to simply take it away.

In reply to Annabelle:

Like those running many companies (particularly larger ones) the presumption of this Board seems to be that people don't enjoy working, so need to be driven, and anything that makes their time at work less arduous is thus both unnecessary "softness and fluffiness" or counter-productive; HR practice being a quasi-subversive influence merely there to administer leave and take notes at hearings, and/or to "paint over" the bits of socialist political nonsense that "real" business-people (-men) have to ignore to "get the job done".

Countering this can be a slow and frustrating process, but the key is pointing out that in reality HR's apparent "soft and fluffiness" saves time, money, reputations, and also contributes significantly to functional efficiency and smooth business-operation.

You can even put numbers on the financial benefits if you look beyond what is normally considered as relevant.

For example: Well run recruitment and induction reduces the numbers of times the process has to be re-run because of poor selections "dropping out" or "failing probation". What is the cost of the doubled recruitment process and the loss of production during the repeated inductions? Or what is the net cost of making one set of people with particular skills or experience redundant to recruit anew, (and the re-runs leading from that, as above) when some strategic forward planning of HR needs could instead save costs by retraining/reskilling and retaining workforce already tested as reliable "known quantity" employees?

How much does it cost in management hours and unproductive effort each time an investigating officer and hearing panel (etc. etc.) have to work through a Disciplinary or Grievance process to resolve some issue that could have been avoided by a manager not harassing, discriminating against, or victimising an employee, or an employee not being frequently late for trivial reasons (and then adding on the costs or replacements etc as above if they are wantonly dismissed when a lesser sanction could have been applied effectively....) ...And don't forget to add on the time-costs and legal fees to defend the application they then make to the ETS... and if they win, the cost of the award and the damage done to the company's reputation (and individual managers' too) when the nice juicy editorially polished not-quite sexual harassment case hits the front page of the "Mirror" on a quiet-news day.

People don't work in car-plants to get cheap cars; they work there to earn money to satisfy their aspirations to buy a house, take flying lessons, or pay for their next pint (white wine) in the pub. They might have little or no interest in what their work results in for the company, but they can be encouraged to share an interest in the health and success of the business if it funds and facilitates their interests. This "shared interest" can be vastly enhanced by not just pay (to do what they want to do outside work) but by it being a comfortable, warm, friendly, fair, egalitarian and respectful place to work. Where good performance is not just rewarded but recognised; managers say "thank you" for a job well done...and so employees do not decide to lie in and nurse the hangover on Monday morning, and do not do all they can to avoid being noticed when some overtime is needed, do not bring grievances, commit disciplinary offences or "slag off" their employer on line, or down the pub over that pint (of white wine?) they bought. 

Staff "Churn" falls, again reducing costs and enhancing efficient operation.

The company thus gets less hassle, better people, more effective operation, more diligence and bigger, fatter profits.

(...and better, legally safe, systems to be rid of those who don't want to play the game that way).

All for the price of an HR Professional's salary and a battery for the CEO's hearing aid so they can pay an attentive ear to HR now and then instead of remaining deaf.

....Oh yes, and the price of a broom to sweep up all the "soft and fluffiness" that isn't actually needed at all. 

P

In reply to Nina Waters:

I absolutely love Nina's response to this question. I do sympathise too: it's hard when you feel like your contribution is being dismissed.

It does sound like you are contributing though and I think it's worth flagging that the work you're doing isn't 'fluffy' - if you're the one that is resolving some of the issues made by management without your involvement, then it's worth saying something - 'goes to show HR isn't just the fluffy, hey!'. It might feel a bit pointed or heavy handed but raised lightly but firmly, it will at least table your point.

It may be that they're not prepared to build relationships and open doors and it might just be a bit of a closed shop where your role isn't appreciated as it could be. Then if you do decide to move on, I'd suggest digging into how any new company might view HR.

In reply to Alys Martin:

When trying to poke dozy Board-Members with a stick, being "a bit pointed" and "heavy-handed" can be an advantage (in moderation of course) Alys. What I would hope, though, is that those of us with the courage to challenge thinking, even one flea-bite at a time, stay with the Companies that need their thinking challenged, because all of us migrating to roles where we are already valued will only make the bad places worse, and that is a situation that has already lasted far too long.

...And in fairness to even the worst "Macho-Dinosaur" Boards, almost all will respond to being shown that a given strategy or tactic works and pays off, even if at first dismissed as "soft and fluffy", so highlighting the small victories as you suggest is certainly worth doing.

P

In reply to Peter:

Try singing this out loudly at Board Meetings, to the tune of 'Puff the Magic Dragon'

“Fluff” you macho morons

Won’t stop calling me

And what’s right is always missed

By your blind stupidity

In reply to David:

....So stop your allegations

that "fluff" is all we do,

Or you'll find out the ETS

will not be "soft" on you!

In reply to Peter:

It's the new Robson & Jerome!

In reply to Robey:

More like Lennon and McCartney 

In reply to Robey:

Lol! We wish! :-)

In reply to Cass Clothier:

Or Lemon and McDonald's.