Why HR lost our trust, and how it needs to change its name or itself to survive it

Covid aside I'm loving the 21st century so far. It's a century of social change through people sharing their stories of abuse and bending together to demand change now (not in 5 years). Whether it's the Black Lives Matter movement for African Americans, or the MeToo movement for women, it seems that fear is no longer holding us captive to a structural status quo that treats many poorly at the benefit of a few. Where you stand on the social status/authority/power ladder no longer matters. No one should be - or imagine themselves to be - above treating people with respect & dignity, whether it be in society or in a company. We're no longer the century of "doing what you're told", we're the century of "doing the right thing". Even better, the corporate world is clamoring they want people to "bring their authentic self to work", they want a diversity of employees, that "people being able to voice both their opinions and experiences" is "encouraged" and that they "care about mental health". There's one problem in this idyllic picture: the never-ending reports and stories of the abuses faced by minorities (and others too) in those "happy workplaces" paint a different story. And in most of those stories, we can see toxic masculinity, bad bosses (see upcoming article on bad bosses) and... HR wrapping it all with a nice bow of apparent ethical due process. In this article we're going to dig into why HR - Human Resources - is often a bad guy in those stories, and why it is imperative for that function to have a strong hard look at itself. We'll also cover why HR needs to decide whether it indeed cares about humans - as its name implies -, or if it should change its name to one more aligned with what it actually cares about - protecting the company when an issue arises - before the level of hypocrisy/gap between its current name and its actions destroys the function altogether.

HR History: The birth of HR and its evolution to its current state

Once upon a time...2 men in the 18th century declared that the well-being of employees led to perfect work; without healthy workers, the organization would not survive." (Wikipedia). Thus HR was born. I found it interesting to learn HR was born during a period we usually picture as full of conflicts between company owners and employees. It is the time of the industrial revolution, when machines slowly replaced men as labor, and employees bonded together to fight for their rights, finding strength in numbers, and creating unions. The industrial revolution lasted from 1760 to 1840, and while unions were created early in that period, they only picked up pace towards 1830. Unions became powerful bodies, capable of stopping companies in their tracks - through strikes - , thus reminding them that people were the source of their profit, and people had needs and rights. And when they didn't have the rights, they fought to get them. (I recommend the TV serial North & South - on Netflix - for a great example of employer/employees relationship in the 1800s and its evolution with the birth of unions. The serial takes place in a North UK industrial town where the main sources of work are fabric mills. It portrays the sides of both employer and employees, and the employer is the son of a single mother who had to work her way up to owning her own mill - which helps feel empathy for the owner, in addition to empathy for the workers.) Now you might wonder, if people were organizing and fighting for themselves, where does HR fit then?

In 1900, "the owner of National Cash Register Co, John Henry Patterson, organized a personnel department to deal with grievances, discharges and safety, and information for supervisors on new laws and practices after several strikes and employee lockouts. This action was followed by other companies; for example, Ford had high turnover ratios of 380 percent in 1913, but just one year later, the line workers of the company had doubled their daily salaries from $2.50 to $5, even though $2.50 was a fair wage at that time.[6]" (Wikipedia)

HR was born and formed to deal with employee well being (employees grievances, discharges and safety) and keep managers accountable (inform supervisors on new laws) to avoid strikes, lawsuits or fines. At the time when unions were strong, this meant that the company "protected itself" not by protecting abusive managers and removing "troublesome" employees, but by keeping managers accountable and employees satisfied. (which is what people are asking for now) How then did we end up in our current HR predicament where HR is not trusted.and backs up bad management?

Simply enough: unions died down. How? In the late 20th century (1970s) globalization happened, and with manufacturing jobs leaving "rich" countries for "cheaper" ones - where no unions fought for employees rights - employees in "rich" countries lost their negotiation power. Afraid of losing their job to abroad workers, and not being able to find another, less and less people went on strike, joined unions or made demands. (if you see this as generalization of a more complex problem I recommend the serial North & South again. In one episode, the owner, fed up with the UK workers striking, imports Irish workers in the night because they would be cheaper and "easier to work with"). Over time, new industries were created, but that did not help employees get their power back as those new industries didn't have unions, or union traditions, like manufacturing did. (see this much deeper article on the subject with a focus on the US) "Fighting the system" in that period also was more about fighting against governments rather than companies. People protested against wars, racism and gender inequality, giving some respite to companies, which took this opportunity to "seize their power back". (there was something called "the winter of discontent" in 1978-79 (article) but that's about it)

With unions dying, and the focus of companies more than ever on productivity at all costs, HR's focus moved from employee well-being and satisfaction to their performance. It also kept the "compliance" to labour law aspect from the 1900s, but to help managers do as much as they wanted with employees, not to keep them accountable. The below definition of human resources management portrays that change well:

"strategic approach to the effective management of people in a company such that they help their business gain a competitive advantage. It is designed to maximize employee performance in service of an employer's strategic objectives....primarily focusing on policies and systems.[2]" (wikipedia)

While in early centuries governments were the ultimate source of power, with globalization that power switches to multinational companies. With globalization we left socialism behind - belief that the means of making, moving, and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the workers - and jumped fully into capitalism - an economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Why now? More than an identity crisis, a value crisis

Which leads us to now, the 21st century. The era of social capitalism - "not a top-down regulation of capitalism for the social good. [which unions and governments used to do before globalization] but a deliberate choice made by individuals to promote equality, fairness, and justice for all. It is a choice to improve societal and environmental outcomes for the betterment of all, including future generations. It is a value system."(source) This is why HR is facing a trust - mistrust - crisis now. As a consequence of globalization empowering companies over employees, HR has become an enforcer of company policy - the company's police - and no longer a mediator between employees and employers to the benefits of the employees like in the 1900s. This worked fine during the globalization years when people were losing their jobs - or afraid to lose them - and money and success were core values. It works less so in a century where people are looking for justice, equality and fairness.

The 21st century is bringing back the same topics as in the 1800s - workers welfare and what constitutes a "good working environment" (instead of "good working wage", though it is still something people fight for centuries later) - because of 3 main things:

1) society adapted to globalization by creating new types of jobs and industries in "rich" countries, hence limiting the fear of lacking jobs

2) the young generations were raised to think that the world is their oyster as long as they have a degree. They learned to be confident in their value

3) the younger generations have adopted a global mindset for their career by accepting jobs not only in other cities, but also in other countries.

Just like companies were picking and choosing from a wide array of cheap countries to move their factories to, 21st century employees compare offers from an array of companies before making their pick, based on their values, not those of companies. In a society where profits are linked to social good, where people boycott your products and company, and where the number of countries with no worker protections is dwindling, companies - and HR - will have no other choice but to adapt once more, or risk their survival. While companies have long learned to adapt their marketing/PR to attract this younger generation of workers, very few have conceded to adapting their insides. Once you're in, you get to see how ugly a world where companies are not regulated can be.

It didn't matter when workers were scared to lose their jobs, or were motivated by money and success alone. It does when workers have options, know their value, and are motivated by justice, equality and fairness. (another great series to watch for context is Mad Men. It shows the evolution of an ad agency - and society - from 1960 to 1970 and how companies/managers/HR have had to forcefully adapt to societal changes no matter how against it they were) Social media, by allowing people to spread information faster and gather as one, recreates the conditions of the union days. It simplifies the organization of wide gatherings, and makes it both harder to keep the ugly insides of a company a secret and isolating abused people. People will no longer stand for unethical behavior, even if that means a risk to their job. Justice, equality and fairness should prevail. Social capitalism is here to stay.

Why do people mistrust HR? It rarely ends well for the employee.

When a department has "human" in its name, it is fair to assume they are going to be good at dealing with "human issues" - psychology, conflicts, emotions etc... - and that they will care if an employee is mistreated. Even more so in the 21st century where social good and empathy are key value driving society as a whole towards progressive change for the betterment of all. When you look at why HR was founded - to focus on the well-being and health of employees, to tackle their grievances and to keep supervisors accountable to labour laws - it is also fair to assume that HR will be caring and act as an employee advocate when an issue arises in the workplace, especially an issue between an employee and a manager. (in our minds HR replaced unions) Alas, this is not the experience people have when they go to HR. Quite the opposite. People often find themselves in trouble after going to HR with a concern or a complaint, especially if it concerns a manager or other powerful person in the organization.

Those cartoons illustrate the situation well. On the one hand employees are told it is normal to have issues in the workplace as we are all humans. On the other, when employees do encounter an issue and go tell HR, they either hear nothing back or get in trouble, sometimes to the point of being pushed out or let go. In the same way that the manager in the above cartoon sends "problematic" employees to HR, HR usually tells on "problematic" employees to management, especially if the feedback was about management. Understandably this does not encourage trust. Employee concerns are not considered grievances to cater to, they are considered a threat or "problem" to deal with, especially if the employee looks courageous enough to go public about internal company issues. Concerned employees who speak out are not seen as upholding the values of the company but as troublemakers/anarchists. While that seems like an impossibly large cognitive jump to make, HR and management seem to make it quite easily, as past and current stories of misconduct show. Ironically, bringing public attention to the ugly insides of the company seems to be the most effective way to make executives/HR act.

But that is not the worst part. The worst part of this system is that companies and HR encourage employees to come forward, under the guise of a "safe space" and "care for their well-being", all the while just referencing anything they can to defend themselves legally, or put blame on the employee. When someone comes to the office of HR, they are not seen as a victim but as a danger, not as a human being but as a potential legal liability. That betrayal of trust is what has led many to go from a mistrust of HR to disgust or anger. This mistrust/disgust/anger is present disproportionately among women as to the betrayal mentioned above is added another: gender betrayal of women HR discarding female employees accounts of abuse or mistreatment, and siding with the often male supervisors/perpetrators. Hearing that HR did not side with an employee over a performance issue is one thing - people can say it is a subjective topic where both sides might be right. Hearing that HR covers up physical abuse and harassment is something much harder to ignore - not to mention illegal and a criminal offense. That so many workplace toxicity stories reached that level of misbehavior, HR was told and did nothing, is why HR is in crisis now. A public crisis that luckily showed how deeply, and often, HR betrays employees trust.

---------------------------------------------------------

Real life example: Ubisoft is in the middle of a plethora of allegations for sexual and other types of misconduct at work and outside of work. (article) And while Ubisoft is the first that a Twitter advocate collected stories on, we know they are not the only video games company hiding such stories, and video games is not the only industry hiding such stories.

"Reports of abuse would be silenced instantly,"?they explain, outlining how the HR department enables misconduct through inaction. In those instances where people in power are removed, Ubisoft isn’t looking to drive meaningful change, but rather protect its brand image and create a "false culture of growth and transparency." /"People complain in small groups, but the faux transparency kills any chance of actual change. It is a well-functioning system of control. There is a lot of conversation happening in the company. It just leads nowhere 9 times out of 10"

Here is Yves Guillemot's response to Ubisoft employees, made public on July 2nd. (after it was leaked by employees to the press. As mentioned above, companies can't keep this inside anymore, people will share what they think is important to share with the world)

Here are a couple other articles to have a look at if you want to learn more on the Ubisoft situation or on the gaming industry's situation linked to misconduct towards women. There are many more you can find online on the company and others like Cards Against Humanity and Twitch.

https://chelseamarieohara.com/#/Papers/My-Story-Ubisoft-Toronto

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-06-26-abuse-in-the-industry-isnt-down-to-a-few-bad-apples-opinion

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-07-06-we-need-a-movement-to-tackle-systemic-abuse-not-a-moment-opinion

Other real life example: Unity Technologies, where the CEO allegedly sexually harassed an employee. The CEO was having a relationship with the Head of HR at the company and the lawsuit comes from a VP of Talent Acquisition, reporting to the Head of HR. So we both have the unusual case of an HR person bringing a toxic culture and misbehavior to light (she did it only after being fired), and the more usual case of another HR being literally "in bed" with high management. Interestingly the Head of HR was asked to leave the company due to conflict of interest only following the lawsuit, and she was replaced by a man (rare among HR). https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2019/06/10/unity-technologies-ceo-john-riccitiello-sexually-harassed-colleagues-former-exec-claims/#3dbfd18e435a

“The relationship and the issues it was causing in the workplace had been discussed openly and regularly among Evans and her peers. Those discussions revealed the discomfort and confusion amongst Unity employees regarding how reporting relationships would be handled and/or how complaints about either Riccitiello or Brown would be handled considering the company’s chief people officer (i.e., the head of human resources) was dating the CEO,” the suit said.

---------------------------------------------------------

The consequence for HR: being replaced (like the employees who trusted them)

Another symptom that things are bad in HR-land is that many companies now have new roles like "Head of People and Culture", "Head of Workplace Culture", "Head of Diversity & Inclusion" reporting directly to the CEO - and in the case of Ubisoft 2 of those roles are being added to the company. Companies are turning their back and disavowing their HR departments. HR is being "sacrificed" as the "bad guy" in the story in hopes of saving the company's reputation. Ironically, this is what HR has done to countless victims, "sacrificing" them to avoid "waves" and putting their job at risk. Karma is real.

Despite our abhorrence for HR - due to pretending to care and be your ally, only to use it against you- and their culpability, we mustn't forget that high management at the company is a big part of the problem as well. It is high management who hires HR, who sets up culture and reviews policies, and high management could have acted at any moment by letting go some people in HR or replacing the head of HR when the first few public stories or internal rumors came out. High management also has to have a good hard look at itself and we - the employees - cannot let them off the hook.

------------------

Real life Example: Cards against Humanity, where an African American employee shares his story of racism in the workplace and abuse by the company and HR, leading to being put in a mental institution against his will. As a result one of the co-founders of CaH has stepped down. There doesn't seem to be any HR personnel at CaH (I was unable to find any on Linkedin) so it's a good story to show that even if HR disappeared, change would also be needed at the high management level . There is a need for someone to hold management accountable.

https://medium.com/@nicolas.j.carter/how-to-know-youre-not-insane-and-how-a-cards-against-humanity-staff-writer-was-fired-40fe07fbbfe4

"When Max Temkin ran a meeting, I took the opportunity to ask him questions about it. [putting the N-word on a card even if the writers hadn't picked it as a final selection] I wanted to know how this had happened, what the owner-writers who had fought in support of the card had said as their arguments. I had trouble imagining this room of 10 white people arguing over using the n-word as a joke in a multi-million dollar card game. In a mediation that occurred between myself and CAH in 2019, I learned that Max had told Jo and Julia, the Head Writers, to fire me after our conversation. They offered this information as a part of their narrative of how my behavior had diverged from “normalcy.” They admitted that I was one of their “foundational” employees, that my performance was extremely high, and that I had never had any issues in the room prior."

https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/23/21300435/cards-against-humanity-max-temkin-report

“A few years ago, we reduced Max’s managerial duties in response to complaints from staff, but it is now clear that we did not fully appreciate the severity of the problem,” the spokesperson told Polygon via email. “We are incredibly sorry, and we know our apologies are not enough.”

-------------------------

Adding new titles and roles with fancier or friendlier names is not fixing the issue. It is only adding another layer on top of a "rotten" structure where the number of layers is helping bad actors hide their misbehavior. In the same fashion that HR was created to deal with employees grievances because high management didn't want to, those new titles/roles are created to deal with HR because high management doesn't want to. If you want to fix a problem, a team or a department, you go in, you collect information and you act. You do not delegate the responsibility to an outside person. It is your company, your employees, your reputation. You are the one who should dig deep and take the needed actions. Only then will people trust that you were not part of the problem all along. In cases like Unity, Ubisoft and Cards Against Humanity- where the misbehaviors go all the way to the number 2s and VPs in a company - it's hard to believe that the number one didn't know.

If on the one hand employees do not trust HR with their grievances, and on the other high management reacts by removing the responsibility of dealing with employee grievances away from HR - its reason for being - then why keep an HR department at all? HR could be renamed to be "Administration" which would include Payroll, Policies & Benefits management. Any expectations that HR would be advocates for employees would be gone with a simple name change. HR would become plain employees - just like the rest of us.

The solution: Make HR truly humane

Instead of adding layers of other roles/titles, that will lead to new departments being created (extra costs for little results), companies would be better served to align their HR department to employees expectations by making them more humane. I loved the definitions of this word as they fit exactly what people expect HR to be, and what we think it should become to survive. Much better than just changing a name and keeping the status quo.

Humane: having or showing compassion or benevolence/inflicting the minimum of pain / intended to have a civilizing or refining effect on people [sadly often interpreted as managers civilizing employees, but not that managers too might need some civilizing. This reflects a time when managers were educated and the workforce not, but in modern times we are all educated people]

HR can no longer be the company's advocate and protector, it has to be a true safe space for employees. To do so effectively HR should split itself in 2 sub-specialties: Administration and Employee Advocacy. The first is very much what HR is today and needs the same degrees and backgrounds current HR professionals have. The 2nd - Employee Advocacy - requires hiring professionals with social services, psychology, mental health and mediation backgrounds. Administrators cannot be expected to handle human conflicts, nor handle them well. The professions listed focus on human beings, how they work, what they need and how to handle struggles, conflicts or trauma. They as a result have less tendency to judge and be rigid to policies like HR often is, and HR wouldn't be in an "awkward" position anymore. Many companies have developed such services via external providers as part of their benefits package but it's a bit like passing a hot potato to someone else instead of taking accountability. If HR had a humane approach from the start, with people trained in dealing with human beings, there would not be a hot potato to throw, just a human being to listen to and assist in alleviating their grievances in humane ways.

But for this to work high management has to be truthful in its desire to change. It mustn't go about employee grievances on a 1 on 1 and reactionary basis when they become public. It must instead take the lead and do a thorough browse of the company and make the necessarily changes both of policies and managers/executives/HR whose behavior do not align with company values or values of basic human decency. As long as high management is motivated only by "saving the company reputation", "mitigating the impact", "making this go away as fast as possible", no HR reform will be effective.

Side note to the CEOs out there [ in my "provocative" writing style]: this not just about mental health, being cookie cutter or singing kumbaya together. It is about hiring people, it is about retention, it is about profits. HR more often than not lead people to leave your organization. People who often don't cost you much (low on the ladder) and who probably brought a lot to the organization (it's usually not the lazy ones who leave). Then you spend a lot of time and money hiring someone else who will probably leave too if they are good. Your projects cost more money than they should, take more time than they should and you don't know because the people who cost you a lot (high on the ladder) are safe and secure and hide it all. Performance doesn't matter to them as they have no fear for their job. They had 1 success 20 years ago, maybe 2, and since then they are "kings"/"stars"/"talents". This is about profits you're losing and costs you're not seeing. And yes it's also about being a good person. With 50% of the workforce millennials now, social capitalism is here to stay. You won't be able to get the profits without being a good guy. There comes a point where X number of people being dissatisfied or abused is more valuable than one "top guy". If X people quit right away you'd see how this costs you more than getting rid of one guy. Sadly people have families to provide for, they're scared, remain silent, and quietly leave your organization. Make the effort. Be curious. Do the right thing.

When I am interviewed for roles I'm often asked "how can you get those kind of results so fast?". It's easy: I ask people on the team what is working and what is not. What they want to keep doing and what they want to see changed. I also ask them for ideas on making things better, for their careers goals, for how they've been feeling so far at the company or in that team. Then I act on it. Of course I also see things that need changing that they don't see (which can create frictions), but my first step is always asking the people. You need to care, to ask and to act. If one of these is missing, then things will just stay the way they were.

Conclusion:

HR is in the middle of an identity crisis that it has to take seriously if it wants to survive. HR is not trusted by employees to be their advocate and counter weight to management the way parliament is to the president. There used to be parliaments - called unions - but many disbanded when companies ran after profits -and non troublesome workers - to cheaper countries with few regulations during the globalization era. In modern times though people want more. Once more they want advocates in the workplace, they want their rights to be respected and their value to be acknowledged. Workers stay away from companies with bad reputations. Consumers and investors too. Values matter more than personal profit or success. Being a nice and kind person matters more than being powerful. Companies and HR departments have yet to catch up to these value changes. They have been surprisingly effective at silencing employees despite there being more job choices for people with a degree than during the globalization years.

But now those silenced stories are being told by employees and stakeholders, forcing companies, HR and other "authorities" group - catholic church, police, politicians etc... - to change more than they are comfortable. It is no longer acceptable to treat people poorly for profit - or your own personal success. It is no longer acceptable to turn a blind eye to physical assault, harassment, racism and discrimination. It is no longer acceptable to say sorry and change only enough to calm the world and go back to "things as usual".

Change is a lot of hard work. It is much harder to change minds than policies (Harvard Business Review wrote an article on it: Leaders focus too much on policies and not enough on changing minds. ), and to take actions vs just speak the words. But:

• when more than 75% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs because of their bosses, and HR does nothing to alleviate this
• when job tenure has decreased to less than 2 years while engagement is supposedly a priority
• when turnover cost is mentioned as an expenditure companies want to lower and yet they do not fill a role for 6 months to a year

there is no other option for companies and HR departments than to change if they want to survive in a society where ethical & social values matter as much as money - if not more. HR's priorities are supposed to be "talent" recruitment and retention (article), and it is failing. According to Forbes turnover is the highest it's been in 10 years.

If history is any indicator, any organization - or individual - left unchecked by an outside power will at some point do wrong, and continue to do so unless outed publicly or forced to step down. While we hope people of value - with the power to do so - would speak up against such horrible deeds, and take action, they don't. It requires a lot of courage - or "recklessness" - to speak truth to power. It often leads to losing your livelihood, your career, or your life's vocation, not to mention threat of litigation and making it harder to find another job because other companies are afraid of your ethical ways. Luckily, we are in an age where those are no longer excuses enough for bad behavior, complicity or silence. This is why people mistrust HR to the point of wanting to see it gone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------