Share Tweet Share









· Valuing employees and ensuring they are treated fairly

· Equal Opportunity and not discriminating against people no matter how different they may be from us

· Respect for the community we serve and for the environment

I considered these very normal beliefs for people in tune with and part of progressive society. For some, acceptance of the changes introduced was slower, but most recognized that change was necessary and that there was no going back to the earlier age of blatant, racism, sexism and other primitive prejudices. Civilization was advancing and we wanted to advance with it.





It was recognized and respected that government had an essential role to play in setting some rules about treating people fairly and taking action, if necessary, when organizations persisted in discriminating and taking advantage of employees in various ways. There was little talk about big or small government; we just knew that government needed to be the right size to keep businesses in line with the direction mandated by the people.





For many years we (HR and Industry) made significant progress and advances in becoming fairer and more respectful of people of all backgrounds. In many respects, what was initially a legal requirement became an accepted and normal operating practice.





And then it seemed to start going wrong. I would date it as around 2000, the gate into a glorious future that instead seemed more like the beginning of regression. The key points, from my perspective, were:





· Interpretation of “business partner” to mean we should be more like them (our partners) and less like HR committed to corporate values and equitable practices

· As the reliance on metrics came to dominate, de-emphasis of aspects of HR (particularly people related) that were not easily expressed using standard metrics

· Increasing emotional detachment from employees except as work units

· Less respect for human rights and more readiness to break the law if the risks, if caught, were not excessive

I started writing about the lowest level of civilization (the homeless, unemployable, unemployed, and other disadvantaged), a few years ago. I was probing to see what action was planned and particularly as unemployment rose drastically for economic reasons and as work processes became less reliant on human labor. I slowly came to the realization that little emphasis was placed on the future of these unfortunates, the leftovers of Capitalism.





I was even more concerned when I discovered that conservative factions (various countries) have little concern about these people. I truly had believed that no modern political system would deliberately exclude any citizens. Is it morally acceptable for the rejects, the dispossessed, to be set apart from the useful people? Even if their numbers increase and they become a large percentage of society should we leave them to rot and die and consider them a sacrifice to maintain our lean and mean economic model?





That is the extreme political view held by various conservative parties. They know the perfect socio-economic formula, but it only includes those that are needed at any point in time and then, after meeting their purpose, they are dispensible.





What do you think? What is most important, a “perfect” economic system excluding and taking no responsibility for large numbers of people, or an “inclusive” economic system, acknowledging responsibility for all people and committed to ensuring their dignity and establishing practical ways for them to contribute, to belong, if traditional employment is not an option?





What is the future of Human Resources in an environment of deregulation and transference of power (moral responsibility) to organizations? To what extent could it further change the role of Human Resources and turn us into desensitized people? Could HR survive?





Thank you for your interest. I look forward to any thoughts and comments you may have.





Ian





“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?”