Should HR Be Split Up?
Business speaker Ram Charan (2014) argues that most Chief Human Resources Officers (CHROs) are process-oriented generalists and their expertise is in personnel benefits, compensation and labor relations. They are focused on internal matters such as engagement, empowerment and managing cultural issues.
Charam believes CEOs would like to see their CHROs to act as a sounding board and trusted partner and have their expertise in linking people and numbers to analyze strengths and weaknesses in the organization, in finding the right fit between staff members and jobs, and in talent management strategy.
Charan proposes to split the CHRO function into 2: An administrative one (reporting to the CFO) and a new CHRO function that focuses on leadership and organization issues and reports to the CEO.
Do you think splitting up the HR function is a good idea? If so, for what kind of companies and in what circumstances? Do you think that splitting HR up in this way (one officer for tactical and operational HR issues, and one for strategic HR issues) is the best choice?
Source: Charan, Ram "It's Time to Split HR" HBR July-August 2014, pp. 34