Human resources departments are meant to serve as the conscience of corporate life—advocates for fairness, mediators in conflicts, and guardians of workplace ethics. Yet across offices worldwide, employees tell familiar stories of HR remaining silent when support was most needed, appearing indifferent to genuine grievances, or failing to act when ethical lines are crossed. This gap between expectation and reality reveals uncomfortable truths about power, process, and the impossible position many HR professionals find themselves occupying.
The failure of HR support is rarely about individual incompetence. Instead, it stems from structural problems that transform what should be employee advocates into organisational mutes—constrained by hierarchy, hampered by unclear processes, and caught between competing loyalties that pull them in opposite directions.
The power problem
Sunil Ranjhan, CHRO, Dixon Technologies, identifies the fundamental issue: positioning within organisational hierarchy. “It all depends on how HR is positioned in an organisation,” he explains. When HR occupies the same executive level as other chief officers, sitting on boards and executive committees, it gains the authority to challenge decisions and advocate effectively for employees.
“Many companies don’t have a clear rule or process on how a grievance or a conflict will be resolved—whether it is between two employees, between an employee and a system, or even between an employee and a manager.”Sunil Ranjhan, CHRO, Dixon Technologies
However, in many companies where HR is viewed merely as a compliance or governance function, management chooses to hire junior professionals at lower levels compared to their peers. “In such organisations, the HR is bound to toe the line of the person who has the most perceived power—whether that is fair or not,” says Ranjhan.
This structural weakness transforms HR from challenger into executor, stripping away the authority necessary to stand up to business leaders when employee welfare conflicts with corporate interests. Without the power to influence decisions, HR becomes a ceremonial function—present but ineffective when real advocacy is required.
The problem is compounded by poorly defined processes. “Many companies don’t have a clear rule or process on how a grievance or a conflict will be resolved—whether it is between two employees, between an employee and a system, or even between an employee and a manager,” Ranjhan notes. Without transparent, balanced procedures, employee voices go unheard, and issues either escalate inappropriately or disappear entirely.
The impossible balance
HR professionals face an inherent duality: serving as both employee advocates and business partners. This dual responsibility creates internal conflicts, particularly when employee interests clash with organisational priorities.
“The HR head of an enterprise without definite aim, direction, rule, or method becomes willy-nilly the organisational referee and pall-bearer of conflicts—especially when the CEO or business head shirks or manipulates his leadership responsibility under the guise of ethics or culture.”Adil Malia, chief executive officer, The Firm
“Ethical behaviour within the company is the HR’s responsibility. They are supposed to raise issues which may be contrary to the views of the top management,” says Ranjhan. However, he acknowledges that organisations must define this role clearly. “In some companies, I’ve seen statements that say, ‘Be fair to the employees and also fair to the organisation.’ It doesn’t mean the HR should always side with either. It means the HR should do what’s right, even if it’s not popular.”
Adil Malia, chief executive, The Firm, describes the predicament bluntly: “The HR head of an enterprise without definite aim, direction, rule, or method becomes willy-nilly the organisational referee and pall-bearer of conflicts—especially when the CEO or business head shirks or manipulates his leadership responsibility under the guise of ethics or culture.”
This impossible position often leaves HR professionals damned regardless of their actions, caught between competing expectations with no clear guidance on how to navigate ethical dilemmas.
Misunderstood mandates
A widespread misconception among employees is that HR possesses judicial authority—the power to rule definitively on conflicts and dispense workplace justice. This expectation sets up inevitable disappointment.
“Unreasonable employee expectation is that HR is like a judge of the Supreme Court meting out instant justice in conflicts, and hence the frustration when the outcome doesn’t favour them,” explains Malia. “But at best, HR is a guide, coach, process champion and influencer.”
To illustrate this misunderstanding, Malia recounts a case from one of his client organisations. After Covid restrictions eased, a manager refused to return to the workplace despite company communications discouraging work-from-home arrangements beyond four days monthly. Though diligent and performance-effective, the employee’s Facebook account revealed he was holidaying in Malaysia with his company laptop without notification.
An internal enquiry found him guilty, and though he resigned before termination, the incident sparked company-wide outrage. “Many wanted work-from-home to be institutionalised and were hoping for a favourable outcome. When that didn’t happen, all hell broke loose. Fingers were pointed at HR for not playing advocacy role sufficiently,” Malia recalls.
The episode demonstrates HR’s no-win situation: “HR is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t. Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea,” Malia observes. “Everyone in a conflict believes they are right. So, when the defined process does not favour the employee, HR becomes the fall guy and is at the receiving end of displaced frustration and anger.”
The communication gap
Dr Rajorshi Ganguli, president and global head of HR, Alkem Laboratories, identifies another critical failure point: inadequate communication. “Abandoning the employee during a critical moment and failing to communicate is probably not the right approach,” he says.
“Abandoning the employee during a critical moment and failing to communicate is probably not the right approach.”Dr Rajorshi Ganguli, president and global head of HR, Alkem Laboratories
Even when decisions are necessary but unpalatable, HR must explain the reasoning behind them. “If that ‘why’ is not communicated, it would seem that HR has not intervened,” Ganguli notes. The failure to facilitate difficult conversations creates an impression of indifference, even when HR has been actively involved behind the scenes.
Ganguli acknowledges the influence of politics and hierarchy but insists HR must transcend such pressures: “While it can never be free of bias, the HR must stand above these and be the conscience keeper of the organisation.”
Building better systems
Effective solutions require structural rather than individual changes. Malia suggests practical safeguards: “Appointing a fair ombudsman for employee issues, effectively communicating facts of cases, ensuring transparency in disciplinary systems, and appointing independent employee-enquiry officers—these mechanisms can provide balance.”
Ranjhan proposes multi-layered grievance systems where issues can progress from individual resolution to committee evaluation and finally to redressal mechanisms if employees remain dissatisfied. “This kind of mechanism has to be clearly defined, established and communicated within the company,” he emphasises.
Ganguli advocates for engagement over avoidance: “Ensure that a decision is taken. And if the employee feels it’s unfair, clarify and explain it. Get both sides to communicate and understand each other. That’s the role HR must play.”
The courage requirement
Human resources is often perceived as a soft function focused on empathy and policy. In reality, it demands backbone, judgement, and fortitude. To challenge power whilst driving business results requires exceptional courage and skill.
As Malia concludes: “HR is not a job for the faint hearted or the scared cow. If you get hit in the face—you take the hit and accept it as an unintended consequence of doing your job with integrity.”
The failure of HR support reflects broader organisational dysfunction rather than individual shortcomings. Until companies address structural power imbalances, clarify processes, and accept that effective employee advocacy sometimes conflicts with immediate business interests, HR will continue to disappoint those it is meant to serve.
1 Comment
Excellent insights. This really adds value keep it coming!