By: Senyo ADJABENG
The Human Resources (HR) function has long been at the crossroads of organizational dynamics, tasked with balancing the interests of employees and employers.
This dual responsibility often places HR professionals in a paradoxical position, referred to as a “Catch-22″, where favouring one side may alienate the other.
Should HR primarily serve as an advocate for employees, ensuring their well-being and engagement? Or should it function as an arm of management, enforcing policies and driving business objectives?
The answer is not straightforward, as HR’s role varies depending on organizational culture, industry norms, and evolving workplace expectations.
As HR practitioner for over 2 decades, I faced same dilemma in my practice years. Employees would accuse you of not being on their side and advocating enough for their needs whilst key management executives will ask if you are for employees or the organisation.
The height of it was when I was asked by my boss at the time and CEO to choose between the company and employees because my proposals were pro-employees.
My answer was to point to what the law said and that our HR proposals was aligned with legal compliance rather than bias towards employees.
I got off the hook on that one but not many others where it was more of discretion than legal provision.
This article looks into the salient matters of the HR function and devotion to its beneficiary stakeholders. Should HR be more aligned to Employees or the Employer?
Though complicated, I have often answered this quite easily – who pays the HR professional? Who does HR work for? The rest then boils down to what the Law and Policy says.
The Dual Mandate of HR: A Historical Perspective
Historically, HR emerged from personnel management, which was largely administrative, focusing on payroll, compliance, and record-keeping.
Over time, the function evolved into a strategic partner, influencing talent acquisition, retention, and organizational culture (Ulrich, 1997). However, this transformation also deepened the tension between HR’s dual roles, employee champion and business enabler.
David Ulrich’s seminal HR model (1997) outlines four key roles for HR professionals: strategic partner, administrative expert, employee advocate, and change agent.
While this framework acknowledges HR’s multifaceted responsibilities, it does not resolve the inherent conflict between representing employees and executing management’s directives.
Proponents of HR as an employee-centric function argue that engaged and satisfied employees drive productivity and innovation. Research by Gallup (2023) indicates that companies with high employee engagement experience 23% higher profitability.
When HR prioritizes employee well-being, through fair compensation, career development, and conflict resolution, it fosters loyalty and reduces turnover. Moreover, in an era where workplace mental health and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are critical, HR must act as a mediator, ensuring employees feel heard and valued.
A study by Deloitte (2022) found that organizations with strong employee advocacy in HR report higher levels of trust and collaboration. However, critics argue that an overly employee-aligned HR department may undermine managerial authority.
If HR consistently sides with employees in disputes, it risks eroding leadership’s confidence in the function, potentially reducing HR’s influence in strategic decision-making.
On the other hand, many organizations view HR as an extension of leadership, responsible for implementing policies that align with business goals. In this model, HR ensures compliance, manages performance metrics, and enforces disciplinary actions when necessary.
From a financial perspective, HR’s alignment with employers can lead to more streamlined operations. For instance, during restructuring or layoffs, HR must execute difficult decisions to maintain organizational viability.
A Harvard Business Review study (2021) found that companies with HR departments closely tied to executive leadership were more agile in adapting to market changes.
Yet, if HR is perceived as purely management-driven, employees may view it as adversarial rather than supportive. This can lead to distrust, disengagement, and even unionization efforts. The 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer revealed that employees increasingly expect HR to act as an independent advocate, not just a policy enforcer.
The real challenge lies in HR’s ability to navigate this duality without compromising its credibility. Some experts suggest that HR should adopt a “dual-customer” approach, where both employees and employers are treated as stakeholders requiring equitable attention (SHRM, 2022).
One way to achieve this balance is through transparent communication. HR must articulate its role clearly, ensuring employees understand that while it advocates for fair treatment, it must also uphold organizational policies.
Additionally, fostering open dialogue between leadership and staff can mitigate conflicts before they escalate. Another strategy is leveraging data-driven decision-making.
By using workforce analytics, HR can present objective insights to leadership, such as turnover trends or engagement scores, while also addressing employee concerns with factual evidence. This approach reduces subjectivity and reinforces HR’s neutrality.
The Ethical Dilemma: When HR’s Loyalty is Tested
There are scenarios where HR’s alignment is put to the test, particularly in cases of whistleblowing, discrimination, or unethical management practices. An employee reports unethical behaviuor by a senior executive.
HR must investigate, but if the company pressures HR to suppress the complaint to avoid scandal, does HR protect the employee or comply with leadership?
If a company facing financial strain orders HR to conduct layoffs in a way that minimizes legal risk but maximizes cost-cutting, employees will expect transparency and fair severance.
Does HR advocate for humane treatment or execute swift terminations as instructed? Take another example where an employee alleges systemic discrimination, but leadership dismisses it as an isolated incident.
Should HR push for an independent review (risking management’s disapproval) or downplay the issue to maintain harmony?
If HR is too closely tied to leadership, it may suppress employee grievances to protect the company’s image. Conversely, if it sides with employees too aggressively, it may face backlash from executives.
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) emphasizes the importance of ethical HR practices, urging professionals to uphold fairness regardless of pressures from either side (SHRM Code of Ethics, 2020). In high-stakes situations, HR must navigate corporate politics while maintaining integrity, a difficult but necessary tightrope to walk.
As workplaces evolve, so must HR’s approach. The rise of remote work, AI-driven recruitment, and changing labor laws demand that HR be both flexible and principled.
Some organizations are experimenting with decentralized HR models, where employee experience teams focus on engagement while HR business partners align with leadership (McKinsey, 2023).
Ultimately, the most effective HR functions will be those that refuse to see employees and employers as opposing forces.
Instead, they will recognize that a thriving workforce is the foundation of a successful business. By fostering mutual respect and shared objectives, HR can transcend the Catch-22 dilemma and emerge as a true architect of organizational success.
For Further Reading
- (2022). Global Human Capital Trends.
- (2023). State of the Global Workplace Report.
- Harvard Business Review. (2021). The Strategic Role of HR in Business Transformation.
- McKinsey & Company. (2023). The Future of HR in the New World of Work.
- Ulrich, D. (1997). Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering Results. Harvard Business School Press.
