Why People Think HR Is “Evil” — and Why HR Matters

I often hear managers and employees describe HR as "evil." They rarely mean it literally. It is shorthand for frustration, confusion, or misalignment — a way of naming the feeling that HR is somehow working against them rather than for them.

When I was a VP in HR, someone once told me our team had become "less evil." I took it as a compliment.

The truth is simpler: HR is misunderstood. And that misunderstanding causes problems in both directions.

What HR is and is not

At its core, HR exists to protect the organisation. Compliance, legal risk, policy, governance, employment law — this is the bedrock of the function. From the perspective of the business, this work is essential. It keeps the business operating within the law and within ethical boundaries. From the perspective of individual employees, it can feel restrictive, procedural, and impersonal.

That tension is structural, not personal. HR is not your adversary. It is an organisational function with a specific mandate that is not primarily about making your working life comfortable. Once that is understood, a lot of the frustration dissolves.

The reasons HR is commonly perceived as obstructive are mostly explainable. HR enforces rules and procedures designed to keep the business legally compliant — which can feel like interference.

It restricts the more exuberant aspects of work events and social activities, usually for entirely sensible legal and ethical reasons. It operates transactionally when people are dealing with large workloads and significant administrative demands.

It is frequently excluded from strategic decisions, then blamed when HR initiatives do not align with business direction. And in disciplinary or performance matters it tends to side with the business — which is exactly what it is supposed to do, since it works for the business.

None of this is accidental or malicious. It is structural.

The rebranding and its risks

HR has rebranded in many organisations over the past decade — "People," "Talent," "Employee Experience." This reflects a genuine shift toward development, wellbeing, and culture, and that shift is broadly positive. People functions that invest in growth, learning, and belonging create better organisations.

But the rebranding introduces a new risk: role confusion.

When I was studying for my HR diploma, the course material painted HR as the primary owner of personnel development, recruitment, and retention. I disagreed with that framing then and I still do. Those responsibilities belong to managers, supported by HR infrastructure.

HR cannot know your people as a manager knows them. HR does not observe the team's daily behaviours, does not understand the domain of the work the way the manager does, and cannot provide the ongoing coaching, clarity, and development conversation that makes the relationship meaningful.

When HR moves too far into management territory, things go wrong in specific and predictable ways.

I have seen HR overrule managers on hiring decisions — which is disempowering to the manager and puts the new hire immediately on the back foot with the person they will actually work with.

I have seen learning platforms rolled out organisation-wide without connection to specific capability gaps, meeting a metric without changing behaviour.

I have seen transformations initiated by HR teams with limited understanding of what is actually required. I have seen executive strategy changed in response to employee engagement scores – as if they were leading business indicators — which they are not.

In one company that approach led to the business prioritising engagement over outcomes, and the business deteriorated quickly as a result. A high engagement score alongside deteriorating results is not a success. Balance must be sought.

HR has levers that can drive meaningful change. The issue arises when those levers are pulled into territory that belongs to management.

The boundary that matters

The manager owns individual performance, development, team dynamics, daily coaching and feedback, role clarity, and growth conversations. HR owns the frameworks, policies, legal compliance, tools, and organisational systems that make those management activities possible and consistent.

When HR tries to manage people directly, managers disengage and lose accountability. When managers abdicate their responsibility for people, HR becomes a surrogate manager — and it does that job badly, because it cannot be done well without the proximity and continuity that management provides.

This is not an argument against HR. It is an argument for clarity about what each function is actually for.

Why HR matters — and how to work with it

When aligned with management and given appropriate scope, HR is one of the most powerful functions in any organisation.

It can protect the business from legal and ethical risk before problems become crises. It can build career development frameworks that give people genuine growth pathways. It can train managers in people leadership — one of the highest-leverage investments any organisation can make.

It can design systems that support fairness and consistency at scale. It can provide the data and structure that makes organisational learning possible.

The practical approach for any manager or leader: understand that HR's mandate is to protect the organisation first. Work with HR as a partner on the things it does well — frameworks, policy, development infrastructure, legal guidance. Keep management responsibilities with managers. Align people initiatives with business outcomes, not just with engagement metrics. Treat policies as systems rather than personal judgements.

HR is not evil. Management is not optional. Confusion arises when we expect HR to be both guardian and nurturer, both enforcer and coach, both strategy and execution. Clear roles create better organisations — and better organisations create better work.