Why HPT will continue to be a hard sell

Pearlstein, R. B. (2012). Why HPT will continue to be a hard sell. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(1), 75–84. doi:10.1002/piq.20132

It isn’t often that you come across an article that has such broad strokes yet makes you feel personally validated. Pearlstein takes his years of consulting experience and makes a case for why HPT is a hard sell to leaders in all industries. He identifies 5 reasons that are worth mentioning here.

1.     HPT is not part of standard business jargon

2.     Organizational executives associate both HPT and HPI with HR.

3.     Managers in large organizations think they are the primary problem solvers.

4.     Executives support subject-matter expertise more than performance improvement.

5.     Managers want magic bullets.

Each of these points are discussed and examples given. He goes on to give some basic guidelines that help ease the difficulty but points out that it still hard going. This should be a must read for any new HPT student/consultant.

I found the article very enlightening. I could relate directly with many of Pearlstein’s points, with the discussion of jargon and HR related issues coming to the forefront. Pearlstein points out that much of his data is not valid statistically (he uses Google searches for much of his comparison data) but is quick to provide anecdotal evidence as well. I feel this article directly relates to what I should do as a HPT professional. I agree whole heartedly with his statements and plan to take many to heart going forward.

If I were to question his conclusions it would be about the lack of value that HR brings to the table. I think that it is more of the way HR is structured rather than HR in general that makes for the negative view of HPT coming out of the HR mold. I have worked in organizations were both structures have existed. In the successful HR experience, Employee Development was seen as a solutions center serving a functional role across all divisions. The quality of the work and the marketing by the group went a long ways to validating the value being brought to the organization. The other structure buried the employee development group and suffered that it be limited to training classes an minor consulting situations