ABSTRACT
HR networks are however not without risk, especially if they remain too informally based. Within our validation workshops it was clear that for some international HR professionals the concept of HR centers of excellence built around informal networks can be troubling. This “troubled” line of thought runs as follows. On the technical side the attractions of having global centers of expertise seems clear. However, when applied to HR work, the concept actually goes through a number of transitions. One of these transitions depends on the size of the network required to deliver the expertise. The smaller the network size, the more that there is gravitation to core areas of HR that might reflect political issues. The example was given of a chief executive who likes stock options. An opportunistic person in HR is capable of spreading this expertise even though more considered data might show the cultural problems inherent in such a strategy. In short, considerable social capital can be captured and owned by an individual, a small team, network or organizational unit as a result of the granting of center of excellence status. If the interests of this social capital are not aligned with the reality of organizational behavior that results from the application of its ideas, then dysfunctional arguments around policy and the relative interests of different stakeholder groups can arise. Not surprisingly, then, it becomes critical that the activity of HR networks and the sharing of knowledge across the organization is guided by some higher-level themes that bring a degree of structure and consistency to global activity. It is to this topic that we turn in the next chapter.
