• Replies 14 replies
  • Subscribers 3 subscribers
  • Views 5403 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Should HR be the organisational 'police'?

Jody

Hi all,

I have always understood that in HR we're not here to 'police' adherence to policy and what managers can and can't do. Instead we are there to advise on best practice, organisational policy and employment law - and it is for senior managers to then make final decision on the actions that are needed.

Sometimes HR can get the blame for things going wrong in an organisation, when staff member's ask 'why didn't HR do something'? When in fact, the HR team may have strongly advised against something happening but does not have final authority and the manager does it anyway.

What are your views? In what contexts should HR be the organisational 'police' (if at all), and when should we be advising and then leaving it to the manager to make their final decision?

Thanks,

Jody

Parents
  • Hi Jody, I've been reading the answers and enjoying the conversation your question has sparked so thank you for posting it.

    I'd echo many of the comments below and I'd add a few things. HR has a role to play in compliance as Elizabeth illudes to although calling it checking is a nice touch. Sometimes our role is to uphold the line on areas and that can make us unpopular in the moment. Sometimes it's about what a coach colleague of mine quotes as radical candor, 'we give not what is wanted, we give what's needed'.

    I've always advised and tried to trust managers and leaders to do the right thing. If they don't take the advice, this is their choice although it might come with consequences. If a leader or manager was going to do something I did not feel was in the best interests of the individual, themselves or the business I'd have no issue raising that with them.

    If they went ahead anyway, I would have no issue speaking to them about the impact or unintended consequences of their actions. Holding managers and leaders to account, supporting their on the job development and the development of the culture and context in which we all operate, all part of the role. They might view that as 'policing' or this term might be used as a means of avoiding ownership....that's not how I would view it.
Reply
  • Hi Jody, I've been reading the answers and enjoying the conversation your question has sparked so thank you for posting it.

    I'd echo many of the comments below and I'd add a few things. HR has a role to play in compliance as Elizabeth illudes to although calling it checking is a nice touch. Sometimes our role is to uphold the line on areas and that can make us unpopular in the moment. Sometimes it's about what a coach colleague of mine quotes as radical candor, 'we give not what is wanted, we give what's needed'.

    I've always advised and tried to trust managers and leaders to do the right thing. If they don't take the advice, this is their choice although it might come with consequences. If a leader or manager was going to do something I did not feel was in the best interests of the individual, themselves or the business I'd have no issue raising that with them.

    If they went ahead anyway, I would have no issue speaking to them about the impact or unintended consequences of their actions. Holding managers and leaders to account, supporting their on the job development and the development of the culture and context in which we all operate, all part of the role. They might view that as 'policing' or this term might be used as a means of avoiding ownership....that's not how I would view it.
Children
No Data