Show of hands, please
rad
1,163 Posts
I am interested in your opinions on this: a co-worker insists that in order to be effective in HR, one must first have supervisory experience because it is impossible to counsel supervisors on such things as terminations, employee relations, etc, without having been in that position yourself.
I do not agree; the analogy I made was that a conductor does not have to know how to play every instrument in an orchestra in order to be an effective conductor.
What do you think?
I do not agree; the analogy I made was that a conductor does not have to know how to play every instrument in an orchestra in order to be an effective conductor.
What do you think?
Comments
In the HR arena, it is very easy to tell a supervisor that he/she has to sit an employee down and issue a written warning. Not having the experience of a face to face may result in throwing out a few suggestions and leave the supervisor still out in the cold.
On the other hand, many HR people have accepted the role of dealing with personnel and the day to day issues that come up. This enables them to think through a situation and offer advise that will assist the supervisor with his dilemma. If it is not a work issue, i.e. poor work performance, there are times I have assumed the supervisor's role in disciplinaring an employee. I believe that my supervisory exposure helped me to handle these situations in a logical manner.
Its like raising kids. Would you take advice from a psychologist or expert who has never actually raised any?
In the very least, being a supervisor will give you humility and the clear realization that not all problems have easy answers. Working with people is messy and sometimes that reality is not adequately portrayed in a management book.
When I supervised my own crew, I made some knucklehead moves along the way. I try to remember that when I am working with supervisors now.
On the other hand, an HR person can probably gain the equivalent experience over time if he or she is observant.
Interesting question!
However, seriously now, I think those who have supervisory experience -- or any line management or operational experience outside of HR -- are bound to make better HR practitioners because of a broader understanding of the business. Now I realize that's a generalization and I'm going to take some hits for it, so let me make it all better by saying that it's just my opinion.
>the past that my posts somewhat resemble Don D's
>- so there you go.
Not really. You're a better speller.
Does practice make perfect? No. Perfect practice makes perfect. I generally agree that the broader a persons experience and knowledge, the more tools she or he has to bring to any situation. But if you have been supervising staff incorrectly, then you bring incorrect information and practice to the party. HR people have information and experience in the laws and regulations that others do not have, which means they can advise on those matters with little or no experience supervising. Now when it comes to the people aspect of running the show, then experience is very helpful. Knowing how to handle difficult, obstructionistic EEs is not something one learns easily from a textbook. Motivating, selling and generally having your ideas and suggestions implemented is also difficult to learn from a book. You try things out, learn from your mistakes, and come back and do it again.
mwild, good point about the priests.
p.s. We did some great things in his class. Instead of talking about early settlers and their hardships, one class built a log cabin. My class' subject was about mountain men and their indian allies, so we slept in a teepee, loaded and fired musket guns, shot bow and arrow, started fires by flint, cooked venison over a fire, worked leather hides and had a whole lot of fun over one weekend.
If I hadn't been a supervisor in a previous life, I would be hardpressed to make suggestions to the supervisors about dealing with employee issues.
Happy Thanksgiving to all,
Dutch2