Recently I came across an article in the July-August 2015 Harvard Business Review entitled, “People

before Strategy.” (I am not sure the link will work, but you can try clicking here to read it for yourself.) I
was particularly struck by the sub-title, “A New Role for the CHRO”, for my immediate response was
“How many organisations have a CHRO?”

I guess to some extent that is the intended response. Certainly the useful summary table provided in the
article infers this.

The authors’ identification of the problem certainly appears to be a valid one. The need to make
organisations more responsive, adaptable and faster to change have unquestionably fueled the
recognition that human capital is a top challenge for executives today. This is further evidenced by the
plethora of continuous improvement, knowledge management and employee engagement initiatives
being undertaken. Yet despite this HR still remains the poor relation at the executive table.

The solution – that the CHRO must become a true strategic partner – therefore seems to be glaringly
obvious. Yet the extent to which this has happened, or to which it is happening, is questionable, and
remains a significant challenge. This is because, historically, HR has been a mainly bureaucratic function,
so:

HR itself does not fully understand what this new mandate requires; and

Other executives don’t fully understand what HR needs to do either; and, as a result

There is a credibility gap that is extremely difficult to close.

As a result, the approach suggested - that CEO’s rewrite the CHRO’s job description - is not as
straightforward as it appears. And the lack of progress to date seems to bear this out. So, could this
approach be wrong?
To answer that requires a fresh look at the problem and its causes. Arguably, the root problem is one of
communication. CEOs and other executives generally use hard, empirical measures to assess
performance. HR, on the other hand, is uncomfortable with this. They see “human” as the primary
aspect of their role rather than “resources” and thus tend to be more comfortable with more subjective
measures that other managers regards as “touchy, feely.” Consequently there is always a difference of
perspective between HR and other managers, and this can cause tensions and mistrust.

Overcoming this calls for a new language that bridge the divide. For me the key lies in the phrase
“human capital.” This retains the human element whilst simultaneously recognising the organisational
value inherent in people. All that is then required is a way to determine that value in a way that both
parties are comfortable with. When you have this you have the basis of a common “language” that
bridges this communication gap and enables more effective cooperation and collaboration.

The ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you this. It goes beyond “People Before Strategy” and makes
your people integral to your strategy, its implementation and thus to your success. I therefore invite you
to contact me to learn more and explore why this could be everything you are looking for to optimise
your people and their contribution to your organisation and its performance.