There is a moment in every organisation when an employee discovers what HR actually does. It usually happens during a conflict. The employee has a problem with their manager. It might be serious — bullying, discrimination, a hostile environment. They go to HR expecting advocacy. They receive process management.
The investigation is opened. The employee is told to keep it confidential. The manager is spoken to. The outcome is communicated in language so carefully constructed it says nothing. The manager remains. The employee begins updating their CV.
That moment — the moment when the employee realises that “here for you” means “here to manage the risk you represent” — is one of the most damaging experiences in organisational life. Not because the outcome is always wrong. But because the expectation was set by the branding.
The rebrand from Human Resources to People & Culture was not cosmetic. It was strategic. Human Resources was honest about its function. It managed a resource. The resource was human. The framing was cold but accurate. People & Culture promised something different — that the department existed to serve people and shape culture. That promise created an expectation that the function was never designed to meet.
HR reports to the CEO. The CEO runs the organisation. HR’s job is to protect the organisation from legal, reputational, and operational risk. When that protection aligns with employee interests — as it does in fair hiring, reasonable accommodations, and compliance with employment law — the system works. When employee interests conflict with organisational interests — as they do in whistleblowing, discrimination complaints against senior leaders, and cultural criticism — the system protects the organisation. Every time.
The cheerleading function is more recent and more corrosive. Engagement surveys that measure happiness but not truth. Culture initiatives that photograph well for LinkedIn. Wellbeing programmes that address individual stress without touching the organisational conditions that created it. Town halls scripted to simulate openness. Employee resource groups given visibility but not influence.
All of it genuine in intention. All of it structurally incapable of challenging the power it reports to.
The HR professionals who entered the field to advocate for people find themselves in an impossible position. They can see the gap between the promise and the function. They often care deeply. But caring deeply inside a structure that is designed to protect power rather than challenge it produces burnout, cynicism, or complicity. Usually all three, in sequence.
The solution is not to fix HR. The solution is to stop pretending that a function which reports to power can protect people from power. That is a structural impossibility dressed in a caring brand. And the caring brand makes it worse, because it directs people toward the one door in the building that cannot help them, and closes it behind them gently.
If you want to know whether your People Team is here for you, ask what happened to the last person who made a complaint about a senior leader. If nobody can tell you, that is your answer.