Did you happen to see that Wall StreetJournal piece headlined, “Companies say no to having an HRdepartment”?

If you're in the human resources business, that's gonna grabyour attention, right?

In case you missed it, here's an excerpt that conveys the gistof the article:

“Companies seeking flat management structures and moreaccountability for employees are frequently taking aim at humanresources. Executives say the traditional HR department — whichclaims dominion over everything from hiring and firing tomaintaining workplace diversity — stifles innovation and bogs downbusinesses with inefficient policies and processes.

“At the same time, a booming HR software industry has made iteasier than ever to automate or outsource personnel-relatedfunctions such as payroll and benefits administration.”

Wow. Sounds like the end of times, no?

I'm sure there's truth to some of it, especially the notion ofHR processes slowing things down. But I also think that, headlinenotwithstanding, the story is overblown and, in many ways, off themark.

For starters, the idea of flattening your organization is hardlynew. It's been around for decades. Automation and outsourcing areold hat, too.

Thomas Parry, the president of the Integrated BenefitsInstitute, said it's no surprise companies, especially smalleremployers, might be exploring new ways to do what HR hastraditionally addressed.

“But it is essential (employers) remember that integratinghealth and related benefits can help drive a healthier andbetter-performing workforce, which ultimately maximizes theefficacy of their human capital,” Parry said.

In other words, there's no way software alone can do what HRdoes.

Apparently still feeling the sting, IBI issued yet anotherdefense of HR several days after Parry's comments. This time, itturned to Steve Adams, the CEO of Navera, which happens to sell HRsoftware that helps people make better-informed choices about theirbenefits.

“Automating important … HR processes and freeing up HRprofessionals to focus on strategic, high-value programs related toemployees should be the goal, not getting rid of the HRdepartment,” Adams said.

“Human resource management is a profession with critical skillslike any other function within a company, and it's unwise to thinkthat distributing the responsibility across managers with a widerange of skills wouldn't create serious financial, legal andoperational risks. In fact, we should be placing greater emphasison the strategic role that HR professionals can play.”

Who in HR would disagree?

I'm not here to shill for HR. But it's clear that the realproblem is that HR too often isn't given the respect it deserves.It's not invited into the C-Suite, and it doesn't get asked for itsthinking about corporate strategy.

Of course, if you're a CEO, HR isn't where you'll findoperational expertise. But CEOs would do well to remember that HRoften can bring an even wider, if not global, view of all kinds ofissues critical to corporate growth.

After all, HR is often where everyone goes to share all thatstymies the development and potential of the people we employ,regardless of their title or role in a company.

There's also a more cut-and-dried argument here. If you're busyhelping find new markets, developing new technologies or doingwhatever it is that you do, how can you be expected to also masterall that HR brings to the table?

Compliance is a bear, guys, and I can't for a minute imaginetrying to manage a widget factory floor while staying on top of theAffordable Care Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, theAmericans with Disabilities Act and so on.

So, what about that damning Wall StreetJournal piece?

Well, funny thing is, the first company highlighted in thearticle just hired an employee “to focus on all things related topeople.”

She isn't called a human-resources executive, though; she has notitle at all.