How do you respond to the perspective that "HR is not for the employee, but for the company" - genuinely curious
*insert Tom Hanks typing in You've Got Mail gif here*
The role of an HR professional is to simultaneously look out for employees and the company. If you're good at what you do, this is a very achievable balance. I also don't think there's any point in hiding it - yes, my role is to advocate for employees, but it's also to make sure people (employees, managers, executives) aren't doing things that could get the company in deep doo-doo. In a lot of cases, protecting the company DOES include advocating for the employee.
If a manager comes to me and says they want to fire an employee, unless there's an egregious offense, the answer is almost never "sure, go ahead". Has the manager coached the employee? Is there documentation of those conversations? Have we, as a company, done everything we can to set the employee up for success and clearly communicated what the consequences are for not improving performance/behavior? If someone is getting fired, it should NEVER be a surprise.
Good HR professionals approach performance management this way to benefit the employee and the company. "Pro-employee" - is the employee aware that they are underperforming and aware of the consequences? Have they been provided with written documentation so that we are sure there is no miscommunication? Are we sure this is performance-based, and not an axe to grind or a termination for a discriminatory reason? Have we handled similar situations, well, similarly? "Pro-company" - Do we have all of this documented so if a former employee files suit, we can prove that the termination was legit and not based in discriminatory practices?
Unfortunately, HR is often the messenger when it comes to decisions that people don't like, even though it's not always an HR-specific decision. No raises? Guess what - HR doesn't make that decision unilaterally. Return to office? Don't shoot the messenger, we don't want to be back FT either.
A lot of the "pro-employee" stuff that HR does happens behind closed doors, so I don't expect employees to be aware of that. HR are the folks sitting at the table when it's benefits renewal time, explaining the impact that a significant increase in premium or reduction in services will have on our lowest paid staff. HR is typically the team advocating for raises, even when leaders might not want to give them. A lot of the communications we have, especially as you move up the chain, you have to chalk up to speak your mind and if it doesn't go your way, you need to disagree with the decision but commit to support it (unless, of course, its truly unethical).
I don't expect employees to think that HR's function is to be "for" them, partially because it's not the entirety of the function and the reality is people look for someone to blame when bad things happen. HR is easy to blame for a lot of reasons. If you want a career in HR, it comes with the territory and you need to be prepared for it.
TL;DR...employees are going to think what they're going to think because HR is always the messenger for shitty messages.
(Yes, there are a ton of terrible HR professionals out there, but I've been fortunate to work with really good ones in my career).
