HR - a friend or a foe?
- lauraman
- May 15
- 3 min read
When you think about HR, the function that first comes to mind for many is a go-between for staff and the company. However, that is often not the case in practice, so what happens when the balance is off?
It would be great to think of HR as an in-house well-being and justice system for a company, but like the real justice system, it has its flaws. In the worst case, the way HR works can seriously affect work morale and productivity, erode trust, and lead to resignations. There are also many examples of the high cost to the company when HR is rigged to serve the company only and finds ways to circumvent employees' legal rights.* The irony is the companies ending up losing millions in fines and compensations, so while sweeping things under the carpet helps one individual working there, it doesn’t exactly help the company. Yet, companies don’t seem to learn from others, and these cases keep popping up everywhere.
I have many examples of how HR has been serving the company's interests at the expense of the employee and their well-being. From smaller issues like paying only for one under-seat hand luggage for a two-week training stint abroad, to bigger ones such as supporting one team over another in a way that could have cost the company thousands in fines, and cases where personal information of staff was shared with their colleagues. Most of the examples defy logic and would be good to understand the reasons for their decisions better, but unfortunately, it is more likely to get more examples like these than to get those answers. One pet peeve of mine is when asking HR the reason behind their decisions, the answer tends to be something along the lines of “It is how it is, and that’s it”. If there is a logical and just reason for someone to feel mistreated, HR should be able to provide a proper explanation for their decision instead of staying dismissive and defensive. If someone goes to HR for help without feeling heard or understood, it is not likely they will try that again. However, a good example of the opposite is Susan Fowler at Uber, who did persist but got nowhere.
The people in HR who enjoy the power they have over people and information should not be there, but at the end of the day, what matters most is what the company is asking from HR.
If they are asked to care about the staff, then someone needs to make sure that also happens. If HR is asked to consider the company’s interest first and even throw people under the bus to make sure that happens, then it is pointless to ask people to go to HR for well-being issues. That just becomes a ‘who wants to get hit by the bus first?’ kind of situation. Also, HR culture can turn sour just like culture anywhere else in the company.
I have seen HR people doing things they shouldn’t do and things they are not allowed to do. However, I have never seen or heard of an HR person having had a disciplinary or getting into trouble for abusing power or behaving in a way that wouldn’t be acceptable for anyone else in the company. HR has a lot of power in what is tolerated at the workplace and, therefore, has as much responsibility as leadership in determining the direction the culture develops.
When you look at well-being and productivity from the angle that increasing the former will increase the latter, and therefore the company generally wins, you would think the company that wants HR to serve its interests would include the staff's well-being in the picture. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to happen often enough.
I can’t see any reason for HR not to serve all. Companies, as well as HR, just need to make sure they want to, and they can make that happen.
Comments