{"id":4672,"date":"2019-03-13T07:22:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-13T07:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/5c82c1c8e389917a714cbf18"},"modified":"2019-03-13T07:22:00","modified_gmt":"2019-03-13T07:22:00","slug":"hr-loyalty-management-or-employee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/squarehr.com\/index.php\/2019\/03\/13\/hr-loyalty-management-or-employee\/","title":{"rendered":"HR Loyalty: Management or Employee?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n

\u201d It feels like Human Resources acts first and foremost to protect the company and management, not employees. How would you respond to this?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Human Resources professionals are often asked this question, and usually during the most adversarial of conversations.\u00a0 Employee relations, an important team within HR, is typically assigned responsibility for conducting investigations \u2013 on behalf of the company and in response to employees\u2019 concerns.\u00a0 The source of the complaint while an important starting point is not central to the \u201cwho comes first, company or employee\u201d.\u00a0 Both play a central role with distinct focus<\/em> and different objectives<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Companies are obligated (in some cases by law) to conduct investigations and take appropriate action when advised of a potentially \u201cunacceptable situation\u201d.\u00a0 The Company (usually through HR team members) seeks to understand the situation, the roles played by various \u201cactors\u201d and determine if remedies need to be applied.\u00a0 It is important to remember, federal and\/or state employment law can obligate employers to dig and dig thoroughly into each case with sharp focus on securing the facts, along with their implications.<\/p>\n

Employees bringing complaints to HR should expect a fair and impartial investigation into the situation.\u00a0 This does not however, mean that the investigation automatically nor inherently leans toward the employee\u2019s perspective.\u00a0 Remember, HR\u2019s obligation is to review the charges without bias, gathering all the facts.\u00a0 The investigation team is charged to listen, learn, discover, and then act \u2013taking whatever action is required.<\/p>\n

For example, a corporate university \u201cDean\u201d was reported by two faculty members for \u201cnot fulfilling the Dean\u2019s role\u2019s\u201d.\u00a0 They needed the Dean to be scheduling programs, encouraging enrollment and managing students\u2019 expectations, while encouraging the instructors.\u00a0 According to the faculty making the complaint, their boss was failing on all counts.\u00a0 The faculty wanted \u201caction\u201d and they didn\u2019t want the Dean\u2019s supposed poor performance to reflect poorly on their work.<\/p>\n

The Employee Relations team reviewed class schedules, enrollment records \u2013 both current and historical, along with student reviews.\u00a0 It was clear there were performance gaps on the part of the Dean and the two faculty members making the initial complaint.<\/p>\n

The investigator scheduled a conversation with the Dean and asked specifically about the decline in course offerings along with concomitant reduced enrollment.\u00a0 His response was that he was dealing with a couple of \u201cproblematic professors\u201d and as a result his time for administration was limited.<\/p>\n

Then the investigators examined faculty\u2019s evaluations and found that the Dean\u2019s assertions about substandard performance in the classroom was accurate.\u00a0 The College had always enjoyed an exceptional record of course evaluations and these two individuals\u2019 class evals were, as the Dean described, instructing well below acceptable levels.<\/p>\n

You may be thinking, well the facts let the Dean off the hook, and it looks like the faculty making the allegations were in line for \u201ctrouble\u201d.\u00a0 Neither was accurate.\u00a0 The Dean was not fulfilling the role nor delivering to the key performance metrics (KPM) which measured his work.\u00a0 The University President spoke with the Dean and responding that while the Dean might have had reason to be falling behind he had not informed his leader.\u00a0 The President reiterated that the Dean was obligated to fulfill his obligations, including managing faculty member performance AND insure that she was informed on all issues with which he might struggle.<\/p>\n

The faculty members\u2019 whose student evaluations fell far short of expectations were thoroughly chagrined that the Employee Relations team dug into their class evaluations.\u00a0 They asserted that their complaint was with the Dean \u2013 no complaint had been lodged against their role as instructors. The investigators were clear that their charter required them to look at all aspects of the issue, including their own performance.<\/p>\n

The University President called a meeting with the Dean and the two-faculty members to discuss how to remedy all aspects of the situation.\u00a0 She clarified expectations for the three, reviewed the data gathered and asked for the team to collaborate on rectifying the unacceptable aspects of the situation.\u00a0 All three were advised that their performance would be reviewed again within the next 90 days to insure enough progress was being made.<\/p>\n

The faculty members then sought an audience with the Employee Relations\u2019 investigators.\u00a0 They were unhappy that their performance was also called into question and expressed regret for even raising the issue.\u00a0 They asserted that they got in more trouble for raising the issue, than the Dean suffered for his \u201dpoor performance\u201d.\u00a0 They also suggested that the Company\u2019s University might be retaliating for their allegations.\u00a0 Human Resources assured the faculty, they were serving all parties accordingly.<\/p>\n

This is a classic example of the two-sided coin of Human Resources:\u00a0 on one side is the obligation to care for the business and on the other side, caring for employees.\u00a0 Is this confusing? No, not really \u2026 if all stakeholders don\u2019t focus on caring for the business, the potential exists for the company to fail.\u00a0 Companies who fail cannot employ anyone.\u00a0 So, both sides of this coin are the responsibility of Human Resources.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s important to remember that Human Resources serves many \u201cmasters\u201d, especially their two-sided coin, which defines their work.\u00a0 It\u2019s important to recognize that HR serves \u2013 the greater good (remember that two-sided coin), prevailing laws, and the need for impartial review.\u00a0 Neither the company nor employees should \u201ccome first\u201d.\u00a0 This may not be re-assuring yet accurately reflects the burden our HR colleagues carry.<\/p>\n