The general perception of the HR department/division, and of the function itself, is that it is arrogant. Since the inherent quality of the HR function is to deal with ‘people’, it is difficult for it to create a positive façade for itself. As the differing needs of a variety of people cannot be met to the satisfaction of each one of them, there is always heartburn for the HR manager and all those associated with the function. HR managers also cannot afford to run a popularity contest within the institution.

From the board’s and CEO’s perspective, the HR function is the most critical lynchpin upon which the future growth and success of the enterprise depend. Onboarding and retention of quality workers are the job of efficient HR management. I hold the view, which I practised without compromise, that as CEO the two most important colleagues for me were the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) and the CHRO (Chief Human Resources Officer), who had to be met/interacted with every morning — the right and left hands of the CEO.

Inherently, the function gives authority to HR personnel. Since they deal with hiring, retention and employee wellbeing, many managers misread this authority — instead of being of service to the staff, they think they can lord it over the employees. As every unit has to willy-nilly interact with HR personnel for issues such as leave, travel, medical compensation, education allowances, etc., they remain subservient to the idiosyncrasies of the entire HR team.

Career planning and progression are other most important functions of HR. At the board level, the HR subcommittee usually asks for details of career planning of the ‘A-rated performers’ together with succession plans of the key personnel — this one aspect gives HR a sense of power. Consequently, they love acting as demigods who can shape or destroy the careers/destiny of people.

All staff-related policies are drafted and written by the HR manager, in consultation with the CEO and senior management. After these are approved by the HR subcommittees and the full board, the HR function becomes the custodian of these policies.

The dissemination of HR policies is the job of the HR manager. This responsibility normally becomes a victim of the whims and moods of the HR manager and sometimes of the CEO too. Policies that are meant to be applied across the board, particularly those relating to perks and privileges, are deliberately held back. In making these readily available, the CEO/HR manager guides himself or herself on the flimsy logic of ‘likes and dislikes’ of the people. Favouritism and nepotism also come into play.

In ‘Seth’ mentality-driven organisations, HR policies are framed to meet regulatory governance standards only. They are not meant to be implemented. In rare cases, these policies are used for rewarding performance, which has to be additionally supported with ‘unqualified loyalty’ to the entrepreneur. Many owner-operated organisations look at HR/staff-friendly policies as tools which can be used to selectively give or deny. Entrepreneurs feel that staff policies must not be made available as a ‘right’ but instead that their application must correlate with who is a favourite of the owner and who is not. Entrepreneurs dislike “rights”. They prefer to give staff benefits as ‘favours’. Those who ask as a matter of right are easily sidelined and sidestepped by the ever-compliant HR manager.

An overbearing, arrogant and powerful HR manager impacts the general productivity of the organisation. The creation of a toxic culture of favouritism leads to the prevalence and growth of low employee morale, high attrition rates and lower productivity.

If the climate within the organisation is beset with anxiety, negative actions by senior management and an attitude of a punitive approach, workplace productivity takes a nosedive. But since this is a slow poison that gnaws at the roots of the entity, the decay and decline are experienced over a period of time. An arrogant management can fell organisations as strong as oak trees.

Despite the growth in the openness of management practices, there are, however, still pockets where arrogance prevails, and that too, regrettably, is viewed as a default competence. If the organisation rewards the HR manager for creating a culture of fear, it is actually laying dynamite under the foundations of the organisation. This attitude leads to management implosion — the organisation is wrecked not by a string of wrong strategic moves but more by the behavioural standards and attitudes of its employees.

A false notion of self-importance afflicting HR managers is that they are the best protectors of the organisation. All other operating units could be disloyal to the organisation/entity, but never HR. This holier-than-thou attitude is a global ailment of HR practitioners.

HR professionals usually are seen, and in many cases rightly so, as the officially designated spies of management. HR functionaries attempt to get under the skin of colleagues, always eager to find out more than they could acquire through official channels. The quest is not for discovering latent potential of skills and attitudes for higher performance, but to prolong their stay in HR. Colleagues’ weaknesses are exploited.

While many negatives are ably obtained by HR professionals, it is also a fact that they have to face untrue and alleged accusations for being aloof towards business considerations and for pursuing the agenda of senior management. Perhaps no other department or division in any entity should enjoy a better working relationship with the CEO and senior management than the HR manager and others in the function. HR is an extension of the CEO’s office, especially when it is seen and truly treated as an abused intelligence agency of management.

HR professionals, by and large, exceptions being rare, have in them a typical mother-in-law attitude — always wanting to audit, snooping for errors/mistakes and recalling all the bad experiences regarding a person just when his case is due for annual appraisal. This streak of vindictive nature in HR people is not a forte of the Pakistan corporate sector but is a global phenomenon.

Sirajuddin AzizThe writer is a Senior Banker & Freelance Columnist.

© The Nation