Faced with a choice between an MBA in HR and a general MBA, I had to ask myself a lot of questions. In addition, peers who were in similar situations helped me by discussing their queries, and helping me answer mine. I am trying to reproduce my an…
Faced with a choice between an MBA in HR and a general MBA, I had to ask myself a lot of questions. In addition, peers who were in similar situations helped me by discussing their queries, and helping me answer mine. I am trying to reproduce my answers to some questions here, hoping they'll be useful to some of the readers.
Disclaimer: All these questions were asked to me or my friends by peers, colleagues or seniors at sometime or the other. Please do not be offended by any of them. The idea is not to malign any college/career/gender/person but to answer some questions.
Myth 1: HR is for people who are 'good at interacting with others.'
Reality: Any 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 maximise the returns on the money spent in hiring/retaining human resources. Of course, this needs to be done fairly, and within certain legal boundaries. HR has vast scope, and is broadly divided into:
1) Recruitment - includes strategic planning, forecasting, hiring, and selection
2) Learning and Development - training, learning management and administration, career enhancement
3) Performance Evaluation - appraisals and promotions
4) Industrial Relations - mainly for blue-collared jobs
5) Consulting
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.
Myth 2: No one picks HR. It's only because they have no other choice, that they do an HR course.
Reality: Whoever told you that! In the little circle of people that I know, I can count at least 5 people, who have opted for HR over marketing/finance/operations. And mind you, all the colleges that called them were sterling institutes. But, if you are clear in your mind that HR is your calling, go for it, then!
Myth 3: HR is a women's profession.
Reality: That's been a case because HR was perceived as a 'softer' profession earlier, but not any more. 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 equal footing. For example, in my 6 years of workex, I've seen a fair gender mix amongst HR professionals. So, have no worries on that front.
P.S. I'll be back with more. I don't claim to be an expert or a 'know it all'. These are just my opinions augmented with some research and interaction with HR gurus in my organization. Please feel free to add on, agree, disagree with me. Also, please post further queries and I'll try getting answers from some senior HR folks I know.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to nidhi_rawal, skeptic, bugs bunny, harshadk, and diva12 for enriching discussions and opinions. 
heyyy...tht was a really helpful post..nicely put everythn in one place....well cud u throw some light on what are the growth prospects in HR..like from where does one start...say straight of XLRI...wat are the various posts held?
Question: I've never heard of a CEO with an HR background. If I take an HR course, will I ever become a CEO?
Ans. 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 cases in point: (You can click their names to view their profiles)
1. James Strong: ex-CEO of Qantas - majored in Industrial Relations
2. Anne Sherry: CEO of Westpac
3. Geoff Plummer: MD and CEO of OneSteel
Some experts feel that it is actually easier for HR folks to move into a CEO's role.
1. Theres 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 youre not going to be able to do everything yourself at any stage. So its about building a terrific team of people. And if youve been a HR specialist, that should be something that youre very familiar with watching people, evaluating people, identifying the qualities that you think are outstanding or vital.
Of course, it's a faraway destination from our current positions to CEO, but I looked up the net, and made this post just to put things into better perspective. I hope it reassures everyone about HR.
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.
Amen!!
Ans. 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 cases in point: (You can click their names to view their profiles)
1. James Strong: ex-CEO of Qantas - majored in Industrial Relations
2. Anne Sherry: CEO of Westpac
3. Geoff Plummer: MD and CEO of OneSteel
Some experts feel that it is actually easier for HR folks to move into a CEO's role.
1. Theres 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 youre not going to be able to do everything yourself at any stage. So its about building a terrific team of people. And if youve been a HR specialist, that should be something that youre very familiar with watching people, evaluating people, identifying the qualities that you think are outstanding or vital.
Of course, it's a faraway destination from our current positions to CEO, but I looked up the net, and made this post just to put things into better perspective. I hope it reassures everyone about HR.
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.
Amen!!
Superb post Sumit....u addressed all the doubts I had regarding HR.......I always had felt an inclination towards HR since the day I started having the feeling that an MBA was the true calling for me but then I always had doubts......and I also have heard that HR people are paid less than other MBAs.....thats the thing that still haunts me :new_bat_angel::new_bat_angel:
freakinbubu SaysSuperb post Sumit....u addressed all the doubts I had regarding HR.......I always had felt an inclination towards HR since the day I started having the feeling that an MBA was the true calling for me but then I always had doubts......and I also have heard that HR people are paid less than other MBAs.....thats the thing that still haunts me :new_bat_angel::new_bat_angel:
hey...
thats another myth sumit needs to take care of
... and even if HR folks were to be paid less than investment bankers, would you not get into HR?? inspite of your inclination towards it..
As Frank would have asked, "Are you only in it for the money?"
cheers..
Faced with a choice between an MBA in HR and a general MBA, I had to ask myself a lot of questions. In addition, peers who were in similar situations helped me by discussing their queries, and helping me answer mine. I am trying to reproduce my answers to some questions here, hoping they'll be useful to some of the readers.
Thanx Sumit..
A good initiative :thumbsup:
But wat i feel here is u have only give the pros for joining HR course..
For making an informed decision we shall look into the pros n cons of the course before making a decision...
Having Worked for last 3.5 years, the negatives (pratical issues) what i have seen
HR function has always looked upon as Cost Center of the company - which does not generate any revenue for the company.
There would be other negatives also (which are there for any course ) and hence would request you to research on them also and give detailed analysis - smthing like a SWOT analysis
Cheers
MK
freakinbubu SaysSuperb post Sumit....u addressed all the doubts I had regarding HR.......I always had felt an inclination towards HR since the day I started having the feeling that an MBA was the true calling for me but then I always had doubts......and I also have heard that HR people are paid less than other MBAs.....thats the thing that still haunts me :new_bat_angel::new_bat_angel:
Thanks bubu and monsty for raising a pertinent question. Let me try answering it.
Question: I have heard that HR managers are paid less than Marketing or Finance managers.
Ans. Traditionally, that has been the case. Broadly, organizations split functions into two categories - cost functions and revenue functions. Revenue functions earn money for the organization and improve the bottom line. However, cost functions are a drain on resources, and are given 'stepmotherly' treatment.
HR used to be considered a cost function earlier, and still is considered one, by many organizations. However, due to a change in policies, many organizations have converted it into a revenue function.
For example, in my current organization, there are two kinds of HR - corporate HR and line HR. Each department of the organization has an HR wing, that takes care of appraisals, employee relations, hiring etc. They have a tough life, coz they are cost functions.
However, corporate HR, includes strategic planning, recruitment planning, hiring, policy-making, training and development. These folks earn a lot of revenue by billing other departments. Essentially, by training say 5 people for another department, they're adding on to the productivity of those people. Hence, that department can be billed by HR, and thus the .
Yes, there are pros and cons of an HR profile. Being in a cost center can feel thankless and unrewarding sometimes. But then, if you like being in the frontline, and being blue-eyed boys/girls, there is no dearth of dream jobs. Also, not all cost center jobs involve drudgery.
Salaries are important, no doubt. The initial start that you get may be lower than peers in other 'important' functions, but as you get closer to the top, things do balance out.
Personal opinion: I don't mind compromising a bit on the salary factor, as long as I'm doing something that I love doing. :)
P.S. Please don't get me wrong. The idea is not to glorify HR, but to move people from a mindset of 'Why HR' to 'Why not HR?'
ya friend ! This thread is moving in right direction with righ inputs and discussions!
Thanks Sumit for this initiative ... me too am under going this trauma of deciding on Offer of HR COURSE.
wud like to throw up few questions which i asked myself .
1. What do i look from a job after MBA degree, would the HR PGDM also give the same feel ?? that Yess ! i am a manager ? the feel of making decisions in crunch situations and showing results , moving company ahead with those .. and i found out after analysis that yes it would really do so .. so Why crumble under other's myth towards HR ??
2. Is HR job a monotonous job ?
I feel every job can be termed monotonous or interesting with your outlook towards it !
being an IT guy with Engg Background ,at times i felt it was a pathetic place to work with silly job but with time moving i realised its not bad at all as soon as my attitude changed.
engg graduates with tons of Exp in PSUs work on tenders and requirements, in domains they never worked before like commercial dept etc ,mech guy who worked thru life in thermal plant being put into Hydro incharge all of a sudden with promotion ! and doing wonders there !!! etc etc..
so why not an IT guy in HR ?? lets contribute our acumen in this field too ..
And i need to move ahead with additions of skills ... so why not HR ??
Yup !! moving ahead !
the Questions above are open to comments and suggestions !
Great thread Sumit:idea:
Here's my take on this topic:
No field of management is less or more important than others. In a successful organization, all depts like HR, Fin, Mktg etc. come together, complement one another and work in harmony to produce a firm that works like a well-oiled machine, 24X7.
I'd like to strengthen my argument by giving a couple of examples:
1. Mohandas Pai, Head of HR, Infosys
This former CFO, who's known to be a financial whiz, voluntarily remitted the office of CFO to lead efforts in the areas of Human Resources and Education & Research. Pai, who's also a member of the Infy board, obviously recognized the importance of HR in a people-intensive industry like IT. This loquacious leader has risen the ranks at Infy fairly quickly, and remember: he is not one of the founders. A future CEO in the making perhaps?
2. Peter F Drucker
Drucker started his career as a financial reporter, and then worked as a securities analyst at an insurance firm in London. In of his essays in "Essential Drucker", he talks about how he was sick of the Investment Banking fraternity, whose sole purpose was to mint money. Which is why he shifted base from Finance to Human resources. He completely dedicated the latter part of his career in studying and analyzing organizations, how to improve the effectiveness of employees and coined the term "knowledge worker".
A few days back I was discussing with my HR manager as to why he got into HR. His response perhaps said it all...he said "You gotta have the passion for it".
A great thread and great posts....
My two cents......
Most junta writing CAT/XAT only want to escape the monotony of their work . Whats the escape route? An MBA ! Stories of 1 crore salaries abound!! So write CAT/XAT and get into a general MBA , follow the crowd , the money trail and be out with a degree and a good job. Its exactly like an Engg Degree. Junta take engg or branches based on popularity, not on interest. So when forced to choose a particular field to do an MBA , most choose Fin , Marketing etc because of the glamour associated with it. All the myths busted above are reasons given by ppl not to take HR not because they have any idea of HR, but because thay have heard it from somewhere. As someone who had a lot of doubts regardsing HR myself, after sufficient discussions with bugs and others I have come to the following conclusions..
1. Introspect why you want to do an MBA ?
2. What interests you?
3. What are your priorities ? Is it money , job profile , area of interest?
4. Look at the opportunities in your fieldof interest.
5. MOST IMP: One you think that you are interested in a certain field, DO NOT let considerations like the other field will fetch me 12 lakh pa , while mine will fetch me 10 lakh pa deter you.
As someone said
Life - Dreams = Job
Sadly this is a reality for most . Please try to think what you truly want to do instead of blindly follwoing the crowd. If it is HR so be it......
PS: Sorry for the long and rambling post, but I was bugged up with ppl asking me why I am taking up HR, a 'female oriented ' MBA !!!!
I happened to stumble upon this thread and it has provided me some great insight .
Thanks a lot Sumit !
Even I am interested in HR and I faced the same questions raised in this thread about HR . This thread goes a long way in answering those doubts . Great work Sumit - your research and effort involved in this shows your genuine interest in HR and I am sure you are on your way to being a great HR manager ! The best way to find out is get in touch with HR folks in the Industry and it seems you have done that - kudos !
If you guys have read Dave Ulrich's book on HR - he talks about HR being a strategic business partner in organisations .
I got this from Wiki :
Source : Human resource management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One widely used scheme to describe the role of HRM, developed by Dave Ulrich, defines 4 fields for the HRM function :
- Strategic business partner
- Change agent
- Employee champion
- Administration
I think today HR has changed from what it was a few years back and it continues to evolve and gain importance . It is playing a strategic role today and is not confined to administrative tasks . Also organisations today can underrate the importance of HR at their peril because the key differentiator today for companies and businesses is people and HR .
Rohit bhai, Anvesh, Santiago, Monsty, Harshad, Ashu, Beta , PSL, bubu...and anyone I've inadvertently missed out..thanks a ton for enriching the discussion with further info, questions and discussions.
I have scheduled meetings with some senior HR folks that I know, and I'll try my best to get their views, ideas and opinions. So, please keep the discussions going.
Hmmm..I was reading " Winning.." by Jack Welch and he was clearly in the opinion that ur HR Director is the next imp position to that of a CEO..!!!
Wise words frm the horses' mouth indeed..!!
Apart from the gyaan, its really encouraging to find so many dynamic ppl interested in HR...the future of HR and companies in general looks bright..!!
As to compensation comes, the packages offered to TISS and XLRI students are as good as any investment banker..!!
Just had one thing which I want to confirm whether its a myth or not...sumit maybe u can help..!!
We all know that IB guys work round the clock n end up earning big bucks and suffer a couple depressions every year...!!
Whereas most ppl say HR is a 9-6 job with fixed working hours and hence you can maintain a balance btwn work and family...in fact that cud be one of the reasons why we find so many women in HR..!!
Just let me know if the above is a myth or there's an iota of truth in it ??!!
IMHO, i would rather have a person who loves doing all this but his brainwave is not bound by what he has learned during his course in MBA -HR.
If anyone, can explain me, how a person equipped with MBA-HR degree , can be helpful for a startup like us or various many others floating around?
This is a question, which has been there in my mind for a long time, and solutions to this will be highly appreciated.
These are my thoughts: (I am also working in a start-up and we are facing similar issues in recruiting etc).
- Usually, a typical MBA, is not good for start-ups. The typical MBA is the types whom you would find in a large no. in PG. (I, myself, may end up being one or is already one!). They like intellectual discussions, they just love it. The "What If" analysis. The hypothetical discussions etc. But the actual impact at work may be lesser. These traits are okay for established companies. In the sense, the trade-off can be adjusted for the perceived benefits. But for a start-up I think the "just do it" attitude is more important. I would go as far as saying a "typical MBA" is a concept and the person need not even be an MBA. Though one may probably find more MBA's in that category.
- Usually an average MBA is more expensive than a good engineer. We started recruiting really good engineers instead of average MBA's and though there were a few hic-cups, the guys started doing an amazing job by putting in more hard work. This works well for start-ups. Mind you, the engineers don't do engineering work. The company is into proper management consulting right from market entry, turning companies around and all the typical stuff which MBA's learn during an MBA.
- If I were in a position as you, I would recruit a person who is experienced in HR and has solved similar industry problems (irrespective of whether he is an MBA or not) and in case the firm is cash rich, can employ MBA HR's as juniors to that experienced individual. Will make the job of the experienced HR guy easy.
My point is there is a trade off in terms of money in recruiting an MBA. A start-up must rightly judge at which time it can afford to recruit an MBA and whether the benefits by recruiting one is more than the cost. A well established cash rich firm need not do such an in depth analysis. The mistake would not close the firm definitely. For a start-up, it definitely is important.
Our firm finally decided recruiting intelligent and sensible IITians with 2 yrs experience costs 50-60% of what it would cost to recruit tier-2 MBA's. (The IIT guys are the ones who usually are fed up working in some software company but are actually bright dudes who want a good job profile and they definitely take a salary cut). The IIT/NIT guys are recruited because its important in Mgmt consulting to show a pedigree to the clients, at the same time manage the firm with a lean budget. These guys are not the perfect fits but then, they are also less expensive. The firm will eventually move to the SPJAIN/MDI/XLRI/I/K MBA's when it establishes itself and becomes comfortable with cash inflows.
My 2 cents. I hope it was relevant. Sorry if it was not so.
Pradeep
We all know that IB guys work round the clock n end up earning big bucks and suffer a couple depressions every year...!!
Whereas most ppl say HR is a 9-6 job with fixed working hours and hence you can maintain a balance btwn work and family...in fact that cud be one of the reasons why we find so many women in HR..!!
Just let me know if the above is a myth or there's an iota of truth in it ??!!
That's a total myth. Having worked for the training function of HR for nearly 3 years, I can vouch for that. My boss would be in office from 9 am to 6 pm, on most days, but I'd still get emails from him at 11 pm, many times. He had a wife and two kids, and spent a lot of time with them, but he didn't work any less than the others.
See, if an organization is handing you a fat paycheck, obviously, you'd be expected to earn it! And as far as work-life balance is concerned, that's something you'll have to strive to maintain, irrespective of your field.
As I said earlier, the number of women is higher primarily because of the way HR was perceived earlier. Although, I must concede that functions like Hiring and Recruitment have a higher percentage of women, because of the timings. (Most organizations hire only during normal working hours.)
A work-life balance also depends on the way an organization's policies are structured. With flexi-work and telecommuting policies becoming common, things look positive (for almost any job).
As to compensation comes, the packages offered to TISS and XLRI students are as good as any investment banker..!!
Just had one thing which I want to confirm whether its a myth or not...sumit maybe u can help..!!
We all know that IB guys work round the clock n end up earning big bucks and suffer a couple depressions every year...!!
Whereas most ppl say HR is a 9-6 job with fixed working hours and hence you can maintain a balance btwn work and family...in fact that cud be one of the reasons why we find so many women in HR..!!
Just let me know if the above is a myth or there's an iota of truth in it ??!!
Its not about HR function having a 9-6 Job. All the support functions ie the functions which are not directly related to earning the revenue are generally have such working timings. Functions like HR, Admin, FInance (accounts & taxation) are perfect examples.
The revenue generating functions have to work hard to complete their targets and the same is the case is with functions like HR n Finance also. When such functions have their deadlines people belonging to such functions also slog to meet the deadlines.
Also more number of women are generally at the lower acdre in HR function , and as u go high up in the ranks you will find a very high number of men in the HR function.
Regarding salary structures, i think we should rather not compare salaries of an investment banker to a HR person, as both the roles are totally unconnected and the returns cant be compared. U can still compare the salary figures with Other functions but not with Invesmtent Banker.
Cheers
MK
Hi puys!
Though i m a fresher, still i believe that owing to my natural inclination towards HRD, i have indeed developed the basic understanding of the role of HR in life in general and industry in particular.
No wonder
It actually makes me think. Is it true that most of us would have worked in some firm post engineering and got so frustrated seeing the way HR behave and then developed a "I don't want to get into HR" feeling ?
At least, I definitely felt so when working in my first company.
Side question: Does HR courses have more freshers usually than BM courses? {Factual data please. Not "I am sure that is the case" answer.}
i agree wid Rohit.... I havent felt HR in my 3 years at current job... all those flaff is only in the books... i would go on the extent of saying that the HR doesnt even sit in the same office as we do and operates from an office which is some 15 km away from this place... in 3 years i havent had opportunity of even meeting 1 person in face.... all the HR does is "operations".. givin out salary slips, asking for declarations, crediting extra expenses etc...
acc to me, my boss is my HR rep... any prob i sort out wid him rather than goin to HR (in fact, when did I even think of going).. he sanctions my leaves an he tracks my performance... i would not say he is a great ppl manager but managing decent job as compared to others here at my level... and he is not even MBA... so i dnt think HR is needed in first place to manage HR!
mine is an offshore investment banking unit... where we have no client facing roles but are expected to work as others in front end would... our hours are not as long as those guys but still longer than what normal offices would ask... so here it wld be all the more reason to have those HR policies... but still we are here left alone...
Now that I have put on my first hand experience i would also give you other side of story... Sorry rohit, but I would really want to give example of a frnd who used to work for similar kind of setup for a rival company.. the job function and nature remains same - only company differs... he was very very happy with the HR there.. they had work-life balance committee which used to organise outings on monthly basis.. you could meet HR whenever you had problems with seniors or colleagues (on anonymous basis)... the interactions were so frequent that he had actually made a good friend with the HR female when he left...
so it all depends upon the company to company and function to function and department to department and employee to employee ... One employee can view "HR" as unnecessary word in the organisation or it could be actually viewed as employee centric welfare.... it all depends...
Jshah, fair points! I guess many of us get disillusioned with HR, because our line HR folks are unavailable or busy or never have answers. I used to be one such person, long ago.
In the two organizations that I have worked with, I have been really happy with the functioning of the corporate HR folks. Though, I must admit, the line HR has left me dissatisfied on more than a couple of occasions.
Yes, on a day-to-day basis, it will be your manager who will deal with issues like compensation, leave, medical reimbursements et al, but if you look at the global picture, all these are dealt with, by HR. Your manager can at best be a channel to link you with your HR.
Now, here's another question that I was asked:
Question: Don't you think you might regret taking up HR, six months down the line, when you feel it is not rewarding enough as a career?
Answer: Well, I might regret buying a car after six months, if I feel I could've picked a better model. I might regret marrying a girl now, coz after six months I might be able to pick a better 'model.
Not at all. All of us are 20+ years of age. We need to have at least a faint idea of what we want to do with our respective lives. If you're taking up HR, just because it is the only available choice, I'd say you're making a mistake. I feel you need to decide what your priority is. If you have even an iota of doubt about joining HR, either get rid of the doubt, or get rid of the idea of joining HR. :)
Harsh words, maybe, but that's what my take is.
:rockon: