Catbert is the company’s gatekeeper and policy policeman, concocting and implementing rules and policies with blind adherence to the company.
One of my personal Catbert favorites is the time he came up with the idea to offer unpaid vacation time to employees as long as their managers approved it in advance. He planned to downsize any workgroup who used the policy, since that was proof to him the group was overstaffed. Funny huh?
Making HR the “bad” guy?
But, perhaps not so funny to many people in the workforce today, who still regard the HR function as playing the role of gatekeeper and policy dictator. After a while, few employees visit the office of Catbert since the experience turns out to be painful. Word gets around, and employees stay away.
Unfortunately, many of us in HR were initially taught that if we made an exception of one among many, we would also create inequity for many. Our managers sometimes encouraged us to play the gatekeeper role, and suggested that this was part of the job description.
There have been several occasions in my own career where my direct manager, the CEO of the company, personally instructed me to delay the processing of job requisitions during difficult times, while encouraging his other direct reports to do what was necessary to support the growth and profitability of their businesses.
Actually, this occurred with more than one CEO I worked for. They didn’t want to take accountability for saying no or being the bad guy. After all, that’s HR’s job.
When Human Resource pros are “nice”
But not all HR people are Catberts. In fact, some HR people are the opposite of Catbert.
They’re “nice” people and make it a priority to care about the well-being of employees. They think that it’s their job to walk through the corridors smiling at people and saying hello, believing that it’s their responsibility to set a pleasant tone in the workplace. Many of these “people persons” became interested in becoming an HR professional because they “wanted to work with people.”
Often, “nice” HR people see themselves as the referee between the supervisor and his/her subordinate. This isn’t uncommon as it’s often the supervisor or the subordinate who brings an issue or problem to HR in the first place.
In the worst cases, HR “nice” people are “employee advocates.” They have somehow come to the conclusion that their role is to be the crusader for employees.
They always seem to have a stream of visitors stopping by the office for their dose of encouragement. They take this role very seriously, and anytime they’re in meetings with cross-functional peers, they passionately look out for and guard the rights and welfare of the workforce.
Unfortunately for the “nice” HR people, they aren’t well respected by their peers and senior managers.
Article Continues Below
Talent42 - The #1 Tech Recruiting Conference
The best do what is best for the business
Peer managers grow tired of HR managers whose main purpose is to look after the workforce. They soon look for ways to bypass HR in decision-making and it’s not uncommon for HR to be left out of meetings that they probably should be in.
The reality of course, is that the best HR people are neither Catberts nor “employee advocates.” First and foremost, they’re “business” people, who are focused on doing what’s best for the business.
When an employee relations or people policy question comes up for review, they examine the issue as a business issue, considering the best outcome for the long-term well-being of the business. They understand that exceptions without merit cause internal dissention, but they focus on the business issues and circumstances around them rather than starting from the rulebook.
“Business” HR people also have an underlying understanding that the motivation of the workforce is good for business, and this is a foundational principle for them. They operate by the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would do unto yourself.”
For “business” HR people, word gets around with managers and within the workforce.
Business people always have a seat at the table
While decisions don’t always benefit the person who brought the issue forward, they somehow leave the “business” HR person’s office feeling like a fair decision was made, even when they’re unhappy with the outcome. When decisions are made, “business” HR managers explain the rationale behind them from a business perspective, not suggesting “this is what the policy manual says” or “that’s the way we do business here.”
It doesn’t take a survey to figure out that “business” HR people have a “seat at the table.” Their cross-functional peer managers value them for their objective views, and see them as “business people first, HR second.” This is the role that HR people play in Human Capital Management, a higher-level next step in the evolution of the HR function.
For those HR folks who are still struggling to find their role within their organization, self-reflection through this lens is important to consider. Perhaps more important though, is what others have to offer as an objective opinion.
After all, as HR professionals often preach to employees during career advisory sessions, “perception is reality.”