I’m asking my fellow HR colleagues out there to quit pretending that our profession is rooted in science. It isn’t. I will concede the following:
- HR does follow a process.
- HR does involve math.
- There are elements of psychology in Human Resources.
None of it matters, though, because the field of Human Resources is not scientific. I think it benefits our industry to stop applying pseudo-science to the interview, hiring, and coaching process. We review resumes, meet candidates, demand a demonstration of competency, check references, and make an offer. We communicate clear performance objectives and hold employees accountable. Then we reward as appropriate, and we coach when deficiencies are demonstrated.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Just because something is measurable doesn’t mean it is scientific.
- Physics is a science.
- Chemistry is a science.
- Botany is a science.
Hiring an accountant? Creating a human capital dashboard? Coaching high-performing, high potential employees?
- Not science.
Human Resources is a career with valid and reliable functions; however, until we cure cancer, let’s refrain from tooting our own horn and positioning ourselves as ‘human capital’ scientists.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
HR is a religion. Employees are the sacrifices.
Do people actually call themselves “human capital scientists?” That is some silly sh!t fo sho.
Everyone “knows” what we do, what we don’t do, and what we wish we could do. It’s up to each of us individually to fight those stereotypes. Language like that totally adds to the perception that HR is all about elaborately gift wrapping a poop sandwich.
@Franny I don’t know if people call themselves HC scientists, but they act like it. I’m sick of hearing HR try to achieve value through the use of metrics, psychology, and statistics. The field of HR will only get so far when we use statistics and soft science to make our arguments instead of saying, “Hey, CEO, you ought to STFU and thanks me for cleaning up this piece of shit company of yours.” In that sense, HR is all about communication and project management. Not science. No way.
Human Capital Scientist would have a high degree of awesomeosity if we got to wear one of those sweet scientist suit thingees like Dustin Hoffman and Kevin Spacey in “Outbreak”. I’d walk around all day doing the robot. That’s how I roll…
I wear a lab coat to my job and I consider myself an Evil HR scientist. I dementedly combine people into workplaces who shouldn’t be in the same room, observe the reaction and report my findings on my alternative blog: DementedHRExperiments.com
I always use science as an expression but I do get your point. I always put a combination science and math altogether. I would somewhat argue that interviewing a person is like taking a sample where the interviewer injects the interviewee of something and see how it reacts.
But as I always say to everyone: 99% of the process is Math (yes, I intentionally replace it for your benefit), but the 1% is the more critical…the actual decision, which takes art.
I would call it an art form. Of course I’m an I/O Psychology graduate working in HR with my pseudo-science degree.
I have never heard of someone calling regular HR folks scientists. Though I do think I could have pursued something more “scientific,” Employee and Labor Relations, science it is not. It’s more voodoo and the art of convincing people that what I say makes any sense at all.
Laurie, you just did a Penn & Teller on HR, calling bullshit on the science part. Long story I’ll tell you some time, but when I was at at BigImportantFirm, one of my co-workers told one of my clients that he could prove causation on some very non-scientific parts of human behavior. My client almost laughed through his nose…then threw the guy out on his ear.
@Laurie
I like to read Science Fiction, but I like Fantasy, Mystery and Horror better. I thinks HR falls more into the latter genres than the former
That can be the next awesome twitter game: Define your profession in 140 characters or less. Check out mine on twitter!
You mean I can’t call myself a scientist simply because I run around the office in a white lab coat? Damn, that sucks. And here I was hoping to start using skinner boxes, err, I mean, “ergonomically designed” cubicles.
Thank you for the reality check (slap to the head) Laurie – well put.
Everytime I hear this type of justification I cringe – HR has a role, there is no need to “legitimize” it’s purpose by fitting it into the scientific model. It is what it is.
Besides, I went into HR because I suck at math.
Julie
Laurie, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Can we correlate everything we do to a direct cause-effect relationship? Of course not!
But HR NEEDS to (and often, painfully, doesn’t) apply the scientific method to our art. That means looking at behavioral science data. It means running in-house experiments on our own people. HR isn’t a science, but we should still be acting like scientists in that regard.
For example, data – tremendous amounts of it, in fact – show that the more at-risk compensation is tied to individual performance, the more effective it is at influencing behavior. The more it’s tied to company performance, the less effective it is at getting people to do what you’re compensating them for.
If you believe (and I do) that HR’s most critical “value-add” role is aligning our people’s behavior with our strategic objectives, why would we not want to apply disciplines like psychology and anthropology to our art? Sure, they’re not science the way physics is, but behavioral science is still science. And it’s important.
And when HR pros role out new initiatives, they should use science too. That means tracking outcomes and determining the cause (when possible). It means tweaking programs until they work, or scrapping them all together.
Do you think that’s valuable? And if so, do you not define that as science in the purest sense of the word?
Chris
@Pharma Giles How fun! I just sent you an email message!
@Jimmy I think you and maybe my dead Nana have seen that movie. That’s about it.
@Lance Was that lab coat made in a non-union sweatshop?
@Tracy I still dispute the science behind math. It’s because I don’t understand either.
@Nomar I’m with you on ART.
@Frank Common sense prevails, at least in some parts of the business world. Hooray for people getting thrown out on their asses for spouting that kind of bullshit.
@Michael I like to call my profession ‘unemployed.’
@@HR Minion You can still be evil and take over the world. I approve.
@Julie I’m with you. If I wanted to earn more money, I would have paid attention in Chemistry class.
@Chris I think your points are interesting, but I dispute much of the so-called behavioral science data that’s quoted by scholars, consultants, and SHRM’s monthly magazine. Almost everything can be measured and interpreted, but I call bullshit on trying to legitimize HR by applying the scientific method. How about we apply a better HR methodology? How about we define the HR method in the first place?
Also, I am married to a PhD Chemical Engineer. He makes drugs. More specifically, he makes the part of the drug that makes the drug work. In my mind, that’s science. What I did as a Human Resources professional? It was neither science nor an art. It was sausage-making…
…and I really dislike tubular meat. That’s why I am here to change it.
Does this mean I have to stop talking like Beaker and brush my hair? That’s harsh, yo.
Jackbuilt
The Beaker hairdo can stay, Jackbuilt!
Are we talking euphemistically? If so… ah heck, I’ll go for both Art and Science. Some of us are better at the Art, some better at the Science (yes, Comp geeks, I’m talking about you).
But to get it right you need to measure, calibrate, and analyse then go with your gut.
If we are being literal, then, sorry folks, I’m thinking it is neither Science or Art. It’s a job. Or, if you are lucky, maybe it’s a calling. For most of us, it’s somewhere in between depending on the day.
@Good Witch I
I got ripped on my blog recently for not adhering to the definition of “work/life balance” in a post. Maybe it was “THE definition” I violated. It doesn’t matter.
Point is, just because a group of people decide to agree on something doesn’t make them right. Usually, the deciders know this; it’s their acolytes who get their shorts all up in a wad over blog posts that don’t pay proper respects.
Maybe in our lifetime we will discover and measure the force/energy/property that drives things like charisma, likability, and emotional control. Maybe we’ll be able to clearly, consistently, and cleanly be able to distinguish moods from emotions. Maybe we’ll unlock the human personality the same way we unlocked the genome.
Until then, HR is cooking up art, and the only way we know how to serve it is sashimi style on a bed of theory, with foamed essence of science.
So let’s hold the side of horsesh*t, shall we? Because there isn’t a checklist, competency model, IDP, recruiting process, training model, communication strategy, RIF letter template, comp plan, or definition on earth that’s going to allow us to take the human element (read: the need for artistic genius) out of the equation.
QED.
@Seiden QED indeed!
Wow. An HR (former?)type that understands the reality. Now if you can just relate this to the other 90% of HR types who still believe they are god’s in lab coats, I’d be happier than I am now.
Wow. An HR (former?)type that understands the reality. Now if you can just relate this to the other 90% of HR types who still believe they are god’s in lab coats, I’d be happier than I am now.
@JeffreySummers
@Jeffrey I can assure you that I am god-like but I don’t like lab coats.
H/R is BS man… you don’t even need a uni degree for it.
All they do is get given 100 CV’s…
1) Check which CV’s have the right qualifications.
**down to 50 CV’s**
2) Check which CV’s show more experience.
**down to 25 CV’s**
3) Check which candidates are better qualified and more experienced than yourself + the b/s bosses around the shop who are selling lolly water.
**down to 20 CV’s**
4) Talk to 5 people and pick the one you like the most.
—
I’m surprised HR is becoming a profession & employees are treated as “resources”. Everywhere I’ve worked the boss just does his/her own recruitment, and saves a lot of money in doing so.
Places with big HR departments who use lots of bodgy mathematical quizzes are really boring because the creative guys never pass the logic quizzes. All they do is test your ability with numbers/logic… creative/practical people suck at logic. Methodical pencil pushers are always guns at maths…
Either way, there’s no science behind giving people an IQ test.
The HR profession should die… there’s too many cocky, arrogant pricks in it.