After reading  Mark's great post and the others he references about the possible future of HR and it's ability to change (or not) - I wanted to elaborate on the thoughts about the challenges in the function especially related to the tactical nature of much of the foundation work.  An excerpt from Mark's post:

"There has been an incredible amount of chatter lately regarding HR's future/fate and it makes for a very good read. In the past few weeks alone HR was declared dead and then rose from the ashes. Maren Hogan wrote a nice post with the catchy title, "Slow dancing in a burning room". And don't forget when the smart folks at Harvard Business tackled an age-old missive by asking, "Do HR managers have the skills they need?"  The underlying assumption by each and every writer is the premise that HR must fundamentally change. That may be true, but my sense is that "do nothing" is not only an option, it's a likely outcome."

I agree with Mark's view that "doing nothing" is a likely outcome precisely because it is tough (as a group) to enact change to the tenets that made the function up to now.  The HR challenge I see has 3 broad components: the first,  is one of functional and focus disparity - that is, the very skills and behaviors that make one successful in HR up to a certain level (and in many companies, the only level) - are the very things that hold these practitioners back and keep the business from respecting them.  My career background is finance and I liken this to the fundemental difference between most accountants and finance types. Now, that is not to say that one cannot cross over from one function to another, however as a whole, most people will align and prefer one over the other to a significant extent. My definitions, while broad, outline the fundemental issues HR practitioners have in crossing over (and should easily describe the personality types).  It easy to see that if you are successful in your career to a certain level in one of these columns, you are unlikely to change your stripes later on:

Accounting

• Uses historical data (e.g. fixed) to produce a defined set of statements, consistently every period
• Told how to view data (GAAP, FASB, etc)
• Use and rely on external "requirements" to dictate to the business their need and say "no"
• Focus on compliance
• High consistency of large volume of transactional work under set periods
• High degree of certainty in work/needs - significant creativity not appreciated
• Ticks and ties

HR

• Transactional data: benefits & payroll info, low level ee relations prescribed
• Plan and Policy documents, also legal, IRS, etc views on what can be done and not. Even compensation usually prescribed from external consultants
• Use and rely on external "requirements" to dictate to the business their need and say "no"
• Compliance focused
• Transactional requirements drive - plan periods and compliance reporting
• High degree of certainty in work/needs (ee relations aside)
• Everything must fit the plan (no variations)

Finance

•  May use historical data, but work is generally forward focused or analyzing drivers of the business vs. tracking the data itself  
• Uses both external and internal data and analysis to form and "sell" opinions (valuations, trends, etc), strive to provide solutions
• Transactions tend to dictate focus and often change, more often work is support to the business
• Business need focused, or transactional focus
• Business agreements and market needs dictate work and focus
• High degree of uncertainty
• Variable analysis and 80% solutions are norm

The second leg of the HR challenge stool I see is one of volume and significant changes in the landscape.  HR will always have a challenge relative to strategies for the business or be considered a partner of any sort if the benefits are not managed correctly, or the 5500 is not filed on time.  Unfortunately, if HR cannot deliver on the significant amount of transactional tasks inherent in its mandate, it will never be considered for a seat at the table.  Add to this the changes afoot with things like labor relations, pay reform, training and more - and you have a recipe for a very busy team just to keep up.

The last leg of my HR challenge has been discussed many times before.  Those at the Top, for the most part, do not see a need to change.  Add to this my view that many get or got to HR historically as a placeholder - someone that the boss did not know what to do with, and it is no wonder they don't want to change.  (I know I will get howls on this one, but can name you more than a handful that came this way and are at the top now). 

My feeling given these 3 challenges is that the future of HR may truly lie in breaking the function apart and aligning the similar functions into groups that can support the business in new ways and attract the best talent which will allow the function to be seen as less of a backwater and more as function (or functions now) directly in support of the business.  I will be interested in your thoughts.