Caution: Don't Count on HR

This is the article that got me thinking about launching an HR-related blog. I got some flack for this story, but it was thought-provoking flack. No one who hated this article said "There is no perception that HR is ineffective." They said "We should talk about the good stuff we do and not dwell on the negative."

Here is the story.

Here is an excerpt:

I have been a human-resources person for 25 years, and I love the field, in the same abstract way that I love my country and the thought of peace on Earth. But I also see how things actually work in real-life companies, and that's why I advise employees to think twice (or three or four times) before they spill their guts to their local HR representatives. The fact is, sharing your woes with an HR person can be a self-destructive move.

For one thing, HR people aren't typically trained in employee counseling and their advice may not be so great. But that's the least of your potential worries when you lay out your troubles with an HR type. Human-resources people typically follow a confidentiality guideline known as the "Need to Know" standard. Here's how it works: When an employee comes to HR with a problem and asks that the conversation stay in confidence, the HR person can say, "Oh, absolutely. I will only share our conversation with others on a 'Need to Know' basis."

Well, what the heck kind of standard is that? I have asked HR people about this slippery standard for years, but I have never met one who can produce a written definition of it. I don't think such a thing exists. It's funny, too, because HR people document every other imaginable standard and protocol, from the number of pay-per-view movies an employee is allowed to watch during his business-travel hotel stays to the exact relatives whose death could entitle an employee for bereavement leave (grandmother, yes; step-grandmother, no). HR people are documentation and policy fiends. But the Need to Know protocol stands alone, undefined. And the risk is all yours.

Here is my favorite comment from someone who hated the article:


May 28, 2007 3:25 PM GMT
What Liz is really saying is as a former HR person she was powerless and couldn't be trusted. There are many of us who have influence and know how to skillfully use it to solve both tactical and strategic challenges.

Now, does the commenter say there is no perception in the real world that HR is weak and untrustworthy? No, he impugns my background. There is a name for that kind of argumentation but I forget what it is. Oh yeah -- ad hominem attacks. Last refuge of a person who doesn't like what he is reading and doesn't know how to make the icky feeling go away.