• OAVM Nederland
• OAVM HRM
• OAVM Zuid-Afrika

Wake up call for South Africa’s HR profession

The HR profession in South Africa badly needs to update its systems and processes, but the lack of a common policy and the absence of a driving, overall interest in new systems make it unlikely that change for the better will occur widely, in depth, or quickly, says Malcolm Birkin. South Africa is regarded as a country notable for very successful change.

The apartheid regime was removed from office without a revolution, and without the blood bath that many had predicted. Yet it seems that change in the way in which businesses are operated, and in particular, the effect this has upon HR Professionals, has not changed very much.

South Africa and global HR during the twenty years from the mid-seventies to the mid-nineties, operated in a tightly enclosed economy. It had the most stringent tariff legislation in the world, with the exception of Nepal. This prevented South African companies from operating overseas and foreign companies from competing in South Africa. It operated an 'import replacement' economy.

The 'command and control' systems associated with the fifties are still in operation, which creates a top-down culture where there is little, if any, shared decision making. Line and staff divisions remain entrenched, middle management is not strategic, narrow job descriptions remain in vogue, and there is little evidence of overlapping tasks or multi-skills being used.

Some of the better run companies have adopted a level of strategic HR, but very few have truly embraced the concept, seeking primarily to improve staff retention.What HR professionals say about the situation. Much is said, but little seems to result. Very few HR professionals are happy with their situation, where the old attitudes remain, often resulting in today's HR activities being little changed from the 'Personnel Departments' of old.

HR professionals point to two serious problems. First is the mass of rigid labour legislation that requires much of their time, linked to the multitude of socio-political objectives such as affirmative action, black economic empowerment, gender equality, transformation, and the prescribed training programmes required by the SETA's (Sector Education and Training Authority). Every company has to pay a training levy, and a highly bureaucratic system is in place to regulate training, and how the levies, or part thereof, may be refunded. With the very high incidence of Aids adding to the problems, many HR people see themselves in an Alice in Wonderland situation of having to run fast just to stay in the same place. This reduces the time they can spend upon the full spectrum of developing people, becoming strategic, and generally moving the process forwards, or being able to learn about, and to promote, new practices and systems.

It also produces peculiar results, such as the popularity of seminars on Conflict Management, which are seen as more important than seminars on how to change the culture or management systems to avoid conflict. Similarly "Performance Management" is seen largely as a metric, a measuring system, that is far removed from the international interest in 'the management of performance', where the object is to develop high performance work systems to seek better ways of getting things done.

These examples underline the concerns voiced by many HR professionals that they are busy marking time. Secondly, the majority of business schools continue teaching the old models, so there is little incentive to change, and HR professionals are not always aware of the latest practices, systems and thinking that have been successful overseas. At a recent HR conference I attended in South Africa, after describing how the best of Chinese companies operate self-managed, integrated, multi-functional, negotiated teams; HR professionals were asked how this related to operations within their own companies. The comment "pie in the sky" was not uncommon, meaning that not only do their companies not use such techniques, but their companies have no interest in using those, or similar, modern techniques or systems.

This lack of interest in change was a dominating theme, underscored by the continued use of the Taylor model and its offspring the 'command and control' system with their people locked into the little boxes of the job description. Is there a way out?

One suggestion was for HR professionals themselves to learn more about modern approaches to company models, people management and people development models, systems and practices, and in particular the very tangible benefits that can be obtained from these more modern approaches. It was thought that if new systems could be presented as a route to better profitability or higher growth, rather than simply as being 'new' systems, there would be greater likelihood of their being adopted. In one instance, in talking about achieving better staff retention, it became apparent that management thinking was often very shallow. Retention was locked into the narrow concepts of making the workplace more user-friendly, and improving working conditions, but no examples were found of companies having realised that good staff retention produced staff having a positive sense of belonging and linkage, that translates into better customer service and therefore higher customer retention. The measurement and the value of higher customer retention were totally absent from the equation.

A similar situation exists with the measurement of training ROI. This underscored that training was not seen by management as a given, as a necessary and essential part of achieving an effective growth-oriented company, and so moving the company forwards, but as a cost to be "justified". The concept that measuring individual training programmes was not very meaningful, as it is the level of integration achieved by a range of training programmes that is effective, was not considered. Many HR professionals agreed that this was the more sensible route, but it was not an approach that their companies wanted to use.There was no doubt regarding the wishes of the majority of HR professionals to become more involved in the realties of people development rather than continued involvement with regulations. But here too, there were some negative surprises. There was no doubt regarding the wishes of the majority of HR professionals to become more involved in the realties of people development rather than continued involvement with regulations.

A group of 'bright' HR professionals, many of whom held senior positions, were involved in planning an important HR Conference. They did not want any topics to be discussed that could be seen to be critical of any existing systems, even though prospective speakers had very constructive suggestions for real improvements. These young HR people wanted a conference that was a politically correct yet sterile, gala event, and nothing more. Disappointingly, this emphasised a lack of unity of opinion within the HR profession, and this must inevitably retard the progress of the profession as well as delaying the introduction of new systems and practices. This was again highlighted by the general acceptance that everyone involved in HR activities must be 'registered' or 'accredited'. This was seen as enhancing the status of the profession, despite the very obvious fact that qualifications would be based upon the existing situation, where, as previously mentioned, business schools and training establishments do not include any of the new approaches and systems. Such 'accreditation' would therefore both legitimise and institutionalise the 'time-lock'.

Despite the many negatives, there are numerous HR professionals who do want change, and will do what they can to achieve it, but the lack of a common policy and the absence of a driving, overall interest, in new systems make it unlikely that change for the better will occur widely, in depth, or quickly.

October 2006

The author Dr Malcolm A Birkin is based in Pretoria, South Africa.