Earlier this week we posed the question to some of the Civil Engineering Central Group members on Linkedin: 

Is the human resources function in a civil engineering or construction firm substantially different vs. the human resources function in any other industry?

Quite often we hear from our clients how running a Recruiting or Human Resources operation for a civil engineering or construction firm is a completely different animal compared to any other industry. Do you agree? If you have worked in Human Resources in another industry how would you compare it to how the HR functions in a civil engineering firm?

Here were some of the responses:

There will always be industry-specific differences but the basics are pretty much the same. Most of the time HR people are either overworked and expected to perform miracles and many do an amazing job based upon what they have to work with and some, like in any other area, are just incompetent.

It is different, construction generally has been the slowest industry to grasp the nettle in terms of understanding the importance of a good Human Resource Strategy.The retention rates are some of the worst in any industry and perhaps hark back to the days of the subbie with a hire and fire mentality.Whilst there are examples of this changing often civil engineering consultancies and construction firms pay lip service to the concept of good Human Resource practice.

Recruiting is recruiting and HR is HR, no matter what industry you're in. The differences, mainly, are that recruiting in the civil engineering field is more challenging because there are not enough civil engineers for all the jobs out there. You run into the same issue recruiting other specialties like nurses, etc.

I don't believe it is different at all--well maybe more organized and planned out. I think recruiting is different in other settings-agency vs corporate- slight difference in industry. HR is common in all industries. Of course, they will differ with size.

I have worked in Hospitals (3), Savings and Loan/Banking and now in Civil engineering. Many CEOs due to miopic vision will only hire some one who has worked in their industry and in fact that does give someone a bit of an edge, to"hit the ground' running when hired. However, there are so many Federal and State laws and so many ways of doing common HR functions such as performance reviews, recruiting, salary administration etc., that I don't believe it is necessary to have the same industry experience. To a large degree HR is HR for an experienced professional perhaps not true for those new to the HR or Recruiting field. Do you have to learn new things, absolutely. But I also brought to an engineering company the various solutions and tremendous background of HR knowledge I gained from years of experience. This "out of the civil engineering box experience" is very valuable in my opinion. In my view there is a great deal of overlap in recruiting the "hard to fill" positions of nurses, loan officers and engineers. Obviously I don't recruit civil engineers in RN monthly publications but both industries are facing tremendous difficulties so the solutions will in some ways be similar and more creative and different in others. Enough said!

We are starting to see HR within your large construction companies, particularly the home builders (Top 20) and Commercial construction companies becoming much more sophisticated than just a few years ago.

HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION?

Here are a couple more responses we got over the weekend:

Interesting question. Like several of the others who have responded I see recruitment, selection, and placement as a sub set of human resources management.
On the construction side you rely a lot on people who probably have an indirect relationship with your company- subcontractors, unions, etc.
 
Perhaps to over simplify it I have found that working in industries ranging from eco-tourism to mining and behavioral research to financial services that the organizations who do the best job of hiring people who see a link between their personal goals and the goals of the organization are generally top performers, period.

The strategy in any business is to create clarity, let people know where they fit in and ensure that your reward, performance management systems, hiring and selection, etc are consistent with that.
When you are working with other providers you are impacted by their HR practices as well. If they do a lousy job if managing the things I mentioned it will effect you.
 
The same thing happens with firms that use contract manufacturing, or other indirect relationships.
A big difference in these kinds of firms is how do you effect the HR practices and staffing of people who don't "work" for you.

When I was in manufacturing we "partnered" with our key suppliers on training and other "best" practices. Did this probably help our competitors as well- maybe. But more importantly our vendor/partners saw us in a different light. We usually got their best people and their commitment. I see HR as an internal consulting function in any industry. The job is to determine the human capital challenges and issues effecting your internal "clients" and come up with creative business oriented ways to solve them.

I have found their are four elements common to all industries:
 
Respect
Clear expectations and meaningful feedback
Equitable and clear compensation practices
An understanding of how their job fits the "big picture"

Building systems based on those elements has worked for me every time!

AND

Human resources management principles are same irrespective of the industry. It is just that the professionals should understand the industry specific constraints and adapt themselves to those and implement interventions that are suitable or necessary. It is like knowing how to drive and then using different vehicles. Each vehicle will have its own specifics and a driver has to learn those for a successful engagement or drive.

Having said that, the success will depend on how good the recruited professional is able to learn the industry specifics and adapt. Your client must have been getting people who were not ready to learn and adapt. The recruited professional must have tried to use his experience or methods with the employees of another industry and it must have backfired. To avoid further time delays or such costly trials, your client must have told you that the HR in a construction industry is different from the HR in others. It is true, but, only as far as the methods are concerned. This is basically because the type of people a HR professional will deal with in a construction industry is different from those in IT industry or those in a garment industry or farming operations.
 
I repeat, the principle are all same. The HR professional has to learn the specifics of each industry and adapt.

I have never worked in any other industry in HR except a public sector (highway) engineering entity.  Coming directly from my master's degree program in Industrial/Organizational Pyschology, I would have to say that working with engineers as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) has been a pleasure.  Their analytical minds are very good at quantifying results and establishing bench marks and scoring rubrics for personnel assessment.  It is selling them on the importance of these things that is the hard part.  In terms of performance management and clearly articulating expectations and holding folks accountable, they may need more work.  The "soft skills" of the engineers may need a little work, but the generations of workers that are hitting the market now are way better than their "baby boomer" counterparts in that respect.  In ten years time from right now, it will be much easier to employ the concepts inherent in performance management as we will have a lot of old school thinking that goes out the door.  The challenge is to transfer the (technical) knowledge to our entry- level engineers without them adopting the same "attitudes". 

What I do know is that a fish swims from the head down and trying to convince leadership in an engineering organization of the strategic value of an HR person is no easy task.  It seems as though leadership in my organization will bend over backwards to satisfy (coddle as I have seen it referred to in this thread) one engineer's needs (while simultaneously ruining the morale of 30 others).  When it comes to HR folks, they are simply not compensated and are considered "transactional" instead of a strategic business partner and/or "transformational".  What leadership needs to understand is that one good HR person can attract 20 engineers and retain them for 20 years.  That to me seems way more important that "coddling" one engineer while ruining the morale of every other engineer that did not get a string pulled for them.