Push v/s Pull HR

Amidst all the HR generalist and specialist debate that continues – I’m wondering if we can shift our focus lens view things from a slightly different angle.

Clearly, based on the various functions that HR performs, there are push functions and pull functions.

“Pull” functions are those HR functions, which customers will flock to, like bees to a honeycomb. They can’t get enough of you, their day starts with a mail to you and ends with a mail to you – you are more or less at the center of their existence. Recruitment and Compensation are the two biggest examples of “Pull” functions. And ofcourse, HR Generalists. Managers in these functions will never complain that the business does not give them time, it will always be the reverse – can’t they get off my back? The business will keep asking them for complicated reports, detailed analysis, status updates, and what nots – you are made to feel very much “in demand” and “wanted”. You will never have to justify your existence to them.


“Push” functions are those functions which you have to “sell” to your customer. Performance Management, OD, Leadership Development – to name a few. You will have to create a business case which convinces your customers of the value add of your function. Skepticism, cynicism, dismissal – these are only a few of the “not so nice” reactions you will meet with. The customer will never seek you – it is you who must seek him / her. Ask for meetings, call frequently, follow up regularly. In short, you will have to justify the legitimacy of your existence.

Given this classification, I would say even the skill sets required of HR professionals would then differ, depending upon whether they are in “push” or “pull” functions., irrespective of whether they are generalist or specialist roles.

In a pull function, speed of response, ability to provide closures, negotiate with your customers (on deadlines, decisions, process, etc), manage / juggle multiple, sometimes conflicting demands, assume primary importance.

In a “push” function, packaging and selling skills, ability to engage leadership teams and key stakeholders, and an almost dogged pursuit of your goals are crucial to succeed.

Both functions require an equal mix of brain work and leg work, both need you to be completely clued on to your business, and both demand that you be credible.

So maybe the next time – instead of wondering whether you are more suited for a generalist or a specialist profile, ask yourself instead whether you like to be “pulled” or “pushed”. You might view your choices in a different light.

On Exit Interviews

The CFO magazine writes about how exit interviews can be used as a tool to improve retention.

"Turnover is an expensive proposition, and 32 percent of companies surveyed by PricewaterhouseCoopers expect that cost to increase this year. Domeyer says exit interviews can be an excellent way to stem turnover because people are more likely to be candid about problems once they know they're moving on, especially if they can discuss them with a more objective party in HR."

My experience with exit interviews has been a little different. In fact, for a long time now Ive been wondering about the value of exit interviews. I believe they give you data, which you, as an HR person, should already have been aware of, and that too data - which many times is:

Highly exaggerated and unidimensional - "I hate my manager. and mark my words, everyone from his team is going to attrite in the next 3 months!"

Plagued with recency effect - Promotion loss, dissatisfaction with compensation hike, conflicts with the current boss

Coated with diplomacy - "It's a great place, but my interest lieelsewhere". "I've grown a lot here, now I need something more, which Idon't see this organization being able to give me"

Plain lies - "I wish to take a break in my career", only to find out a month later that the person has joined your competitor.

No one to blame here - because a lot of this is also about the way the exit interviews happen, and when they happen. Often they happen in the last week, amidst a whole lot of paperwork and winding up activities that the employee is swamped in. Also, their end outcome is a paper with the relevant checkboxes ticked - meaningful conversations are rare. And on those few ocassions when the interview has provided a lot of data, HR professionals get caught in the confidentiality rut - how do they act upon this data if they are not allowed to share it in the first place?

On the other hand, doing exit interviews after the employee has left (say within 3 months of his leaving) may be more useful. Logistically a little difficult to manage, but potentially more impactful.

As this CLC report says - (membership required)

Research suggests that companies are increasingly waiting to conduct exit interviews until several months after the employee has left. According to Entrepreneur, employers wait three to nine months, while IOMA and Workforce Management suggest waiting two to seven weeks. Conducting interviews after an employee has left may have the following results:

• Participation levels may decrease the longer a company waits.
• Employee feedback may be of higher quality because employees have had time to reflect on their experience with the company and are less busy dealing with other factors associated with changing jobs.
• Employees may be more level-headed and provide honest, actionable feedback.

And then ofcourse, it could be a great way to build your corporate alumni network!