If I take an HR course, will I ever become a CEO?

I'm not a fortune teller, but I can answer this one without gazing into a crystal ball. My take is that if you have the right skills, attitude, and direction, you can very well become a CEO with an HR background. And if you lack on these fronts, even with a top-notch MBA degree, you won't go too far up that ladder.

Some of the stalwarts who branched out from other streams of management into HR are:

1. James Strong: ex-CEO, Qantas

2. Anne Sherry: CEO, Westpac

3. Geoff Plummer: MD and CEO, OneSteel

4. Mohandas Pai: Head of HR, Infosys

5. Peter F. Drucker, Management Guru

Some experts feel that it is actually easier for HR folks to move into a CEO's role because:
1. There’s no reason that the HR director of a large company could not step into the role of CEO if they have that full understanding of the business.
2. Being a HR practitioner can provide useful insights into being a CEO because of the knowledge gained around how the people in the organisation really work and the processes around it.
3. An HR person applying for the CEO position can make an ordinary business really successful business through understanding what motivates people.

To quote James Strong, "The biggest task for any CEO is to build a team of people around them because I think we all know that you’re not going to be able to do everything yourself at any stage. So it’s about building a terrific team of people. And if you’ve been a HR specialist, that should be something that you’re very familiar with – watching people, evaluating people, identifying the qualities that you think are outstanding or vital.”

P.S. To sum it up, I'd say that HR folks do become CEOs, if they choose to take that path. Even if not many go in that direction, so what? Gives us the chance to be trendsetters, doesn't it? Like I'm quoting Mr. Strong, someone could be quoting your words here, 15 years hence.

Isn’t HR only for girls or for those who don’t get admission anywhere else?

Now, that’s offensive! The next thing you would be saying is that there is a tooth fairy too!

Actually, the truth of the matter is that HR used to be perceived as a ‘soft’ profession earlier, and hence there used to be an inclination towards the fairer sex.  However, HR is as competitive as any other stream of management today. There are tough targets in hiring, selection, training, appraisals, consulting etc. Men and women are on an equal footing, and compete as well as collaborate together on many fronts.

And yes, there are some who have to settle for an HR course, because they didn’t get anything ‘better’. But then, the world is full of go-getters, and that’s what we HR folks consider ourselves as.

Is HR only for those good at ‘interacting with others’?

HR is about managing the human capital of a firm, to meet organizational goals. There are some functions which need people interaction, and others that don't. Almost every profession needs people who are good at interacting with others. Can you be a successful football player, if you can't 'interact' with others? A salesperson? An advertising guy? Whatever! The core responsibility of an HR person is to maximize the returns on the money spent in hiring, retaining and developing human resources or human capital – the new age term. Of course, this needs to be done fairly, and within certain legal boundaries. HR has vast scope, and is broadly divided into:

a) Recruitment - includes strategic planning, forecasting, hiring, and selection

b) Learning and Development - training, learning management and administration, career enhancement

c) Performance Management - appraisals and promotions

d) Industrial Relations - mainly for blue-collared jobs, but progressing into white-collared ones as well

e) Compensation - using wages as a strategic tool to gain advantage

f) Consulting – handling traditional HR issues like recruitment, training, performance management, compensation or newer ones like organizational capability, organization design etc.

Now, think about it. Would just being an extrovert, and having a liking for 'talking and interacting with people' qualify you for a job in any of these fields? No, right? You'd have to work just as hard as any other professional, to do well.

And this is not to negate the importance of your communication skills. By all means, being good at written and verbal communication is useful. It’s just that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a good HR manager.

The Vicious Cycle

When you walk in for an interview at that awesome company you always dreamt about, which department do you typically interact with first?

When you quit a company, in search of better opportunities (and possibly, more money), which department do you interact with last?

When you are working in a company, which department do you interact with least, on a day-to-day basis, but you abuse and curse the most?

It should come as no surprise that the answer to all the three questions would be ‘HR’ for most people. But then, what makes the HR department so universally reviled? Why do people smirk whenever the words ‘work’ and ‘HR’ are uttered together?

One can’t really blame people for this, you know. It’s a vicious cycle. Traditionally, HR has been a support function rather than a strategic function. And so, it has not earned itself the respect that it should have. Consequently, it doesn’t pay what it should, leading to many good candidates giving it the slip, and opting for other ‘valued’ specializations like Finance, Marketing or Strategy. Since many of the candidates coming into HR happen to be the ones who didn’t have any other choice, HR doesn’t pay as well as it should.

And that’s why even some top executives often fail to realize the role that HR plays in an organization, and think of HR executives as outcasts and pariahs. Of course, the winds of change are blowing, but they will take some time to usher in the new paradigm.

Till then, the cycle goes on…