A common theme in several recent media articles has been a reference to “HR stuff-ups” or similar. For example, the term has been used when employers have lost tribunal or court cases. Questionable behaviour by some HR staff has been a significant contributing factor. 

The Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI) is also conscious of this trend. It is currently introducing a certification program for HR practitioners in Australia, and one of the arguments it is using to promote the program is the need to eliminate stuff-ups by unskilled or inexperienced HR practitioners.

In a recent article published online by AHRI, its Chairperson Peter Wilson cautioned HR on the need to provide genuinely independent advice to employees who approached it, not to act as an agent or defender of management. He referred to the recent highly-publicised “Seven West case”, in which a female employee lodged a complaint with HR about the way an investigation into alleged misuse of her corporate credit card had been conducted. The employee had also had a consensual affair with the Seven West CEO that lasted about two years. Wilson’s article reported that the employee claimed that the advice she had received from HR in response to her complaint was aimed at persuading her to drop the complaint and not pursue the matter any further. Seven West apparently wanted to avoid further media exposure and potentially damaging publicity.

Lesson for HR: treat employees fairly

After also describing another recent case, Wilson concluded that HR’s allegiance should be to the organisation, not to individual managers. It needs to respect every employee’s right to be treated fairly. This is often overlooked in situations where there is a power imbalance between the parties to a complaint made to HR. Taking the side of the party with greater power, and moving employees on if they are likely to embarrass management will undermine engagement, productivity and of course the reputation of the HR function.

So the first New Year resolution for senior HR practitioners is to closely examine their conduct in response to complaints and employees’ perceptions of that conduct. Is the conduct genuinely impartial, transparent, consistent, and supportive of the organisation rather than protective of individuals who wield power?

Other potential resolutions

Another article published by the management consulting firm Leadership Management Australia (LMA) suggested some other potential resolutions for HR practitioners to consider. Like the one above, they involve applying some of the principles of self-reflection that people apply to their outside-work New Year resolutions:

• Plan to be successful. Use the relatively quiet period at the start of the year to plan for at least the next few months. This will enable setting of goals and better self-management of stress when workload starts to increase.
• Learn about and apply new technology. Technology advances so rapidly that it is easy to miss new developments, particularly in new (and better) ways to collect and analyse data. Take time out to investigate new developments.
• Review your attitude and aim to make it more positive. Attitude is influenced by how people perceive their roles. Review existing strategies and why your role performs its assigned tasks the way it currently does. 
• Make the physical work environment more stimulating.  This applies to both your own work space and those of employees. Greater freedom to personalise individual work environments is recommended.

It could be argued that each of the above “resolutions” should be ongoing and can be made at any time. However, for many HR practitioners the first month of the year is relatively quiet, so there is more opportunity to find the time to pursue and set them up.

Further reading

• Leading Resolutions, published online by Leadership Management Australia, 22 December 2016. 
• P Wilson, HR’s Allegiance is to the Company, Not the Boss, published online by Australian Human Resources Institute, 16 January 2017.