I was in a policy review and formulation several years back in my past life as HR Manager, and our group had a healthy exchange of opinion on this issue:
Should HR still extend to resigning employees the privilege to participate in training programs?
My colleagues believed this privilege should no longer be extended since ROI can not be expected. Allowing participation is tantamount to bad investment decision.
I offered a dissenting opinion because I believe the thoughts and contribution of a resigning employee in a workshop or group work is still equally important. Furthermore, his decision to leave the organization should not be taken against him.
The debate is a toss between two HR roles– a business partner and an employee champion.
As business partner, HR should be capable of making unpopular but sound and business decisions that will add value to the organization.
While I agree on that premise, but as an HR practitioner, shouldn’t we be employee champions first before a strategic partner?
@ Clarisse– IMO, the admin role is first and foremost the role of HR. And if they want to be relevant in the organization, then HR must be serious with the Strategic Partner Role.
@ dotun– participation of HR in the disciplinary process is important to ensure provisions of the labor code is observed.
My challenge is the fact that inspite of extensive/expensive trainings organizations put up for their departmental heads on hr. They still don’t allow them to carry out basic hr responsibilities at their levels such as querying an erring subordinate without neccesarily needing an HR Expert’s intervention/inputs.