PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10176915

A new mandate for human resources.

Abstract

Should we do away with HR? In recent years, a number of people who study and write about business--along with many who run businesses--have been debating that question. The debate arises out of serious and widespread doubts about HR's contribution to organizational performance. Dave Ulrich acknowledges that HR, as it is configured today in many companies, is indeed ineffective, incompetent, and costly. But he contends that it has never been more necessary. The solution, he believes, is to create an entirely new role for the field that focuses it not on traditional HR activities, such as staffing and compensation, but on business results that enrich the company's value to customers, investors, and employees. Ulrich elaborates on four broad tasks for HR that would allow it to help deliver organizational excellence. First, HR should become a partner in strategy execution. Second, it should become an expert in the way work is organized and executed. Third, it should become a champion for employees. And fourth, it should become an agent of continual change. Fulfilling this agenda would mean that every one of HR's activities would in some concrete way help a company better serve its customers or otherwise increase shareholder value. Can HR transform itself on its own? Certainly not--in fact, the primary responsibility for transforming the role of HR, Ulrich says, belongs to the CEO and to every line manager who works with the HR staff. Competitive success is a function of organizational excellence, and senior managers must hold HR accountable for delivering it.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Ulrich. A new mandate for human resources.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10176915/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 359: commercial enterprises in medical practice.

Increasing numbers of physicians sell and promote both medical and nonmedical products as part of their practices. Physicians always have rendered advice and treatment for a fee, and this practice is appropriate. It is unethical under most circumstances, however, for physicians to sell or promote medical or nonmedical products or services for their financial benefit. The following activities are considered unethical: sale of prescription drugs to be used at home, sale or promotion of nonprescription medicine, sale or promotion of presumptively therapeutic agents that generally are not accepted as part of standard medical practice, sale or promotion of non-health-related items, recruitment of patients or other health care professionals into multilevel marketing arrangements, and sale or promotion of any product in whose sale the physician has a significant financial interest. It is ethical and appropriate, however, to sell products to patients as follows: sale of devices or drugs that require professional administration in the office setting; sale of therapeutic agents, when no other facilities can provide them at reasonable convenience and at reasonable cost; sale of products that clearly are external to the patient-physician relationship, when such a sale would be considered appropriate in an external relationship; and sale of low-cost products for the benefit of community organizations. A rationale is provided for both the prohibited activities and exceptions.

Commerce↗