Hi all,
Stepping to the role nearly a year ago to introduce the HR function for a large international company, the past few months have involved a lot of extra hours.
Introducing new policies, processes, recruitment ATS, even rolling-out a whole new Sage system to support with payroll and the HR documentation/basic processes such as requesting holiday, expenses, sick leave and performance reviews. Sitting with senior management to discuss objectives and organisational structure.
Despite all of these positive changes, throughout meetings and during conversations with my director the word 'fluffy' is frequently used when something needs to fixed/resolved.
In some cases, my role is treated as a PA in which case I have pushed back and some requests which are obviously not in the HR remit. I have received feedback that I am being too sensitive etc.
The word fluffy is used by senior board members when I need to be brought in to 'be the nice person' I have advised multiple times that HR is black and white, there to support the business and is not a role which acts as a tissue lady (anymore)/ basic administration. But am I fighting a losing battle? For example, business decisions are made without HR involvement and once it goes wrong, i.e. modern slavery involvement only then am I advised, asked to resolve.
This is a huge culture shift and if it's one person against a whole Company/board, should I accept that the company is too set in it's ways?
They seem to value other areas of the business more and when looking at salary bandings they would consider HR as an administrative function.
Has anyone else received this view in their role previously? I've had 121s with my director confirming that this word under values what I bring to the table/the future department can and I need their investment to demonstrate this to the rest of the board. I've also had presentations noting what HR is...
