One thing that I had to learn the hard way years ago is that there's no equivalent to "doctor-patient privilege" for HR people. They can and will use what you say against you, and they will likely relay what you say to other people.
It's admittedly pretty cynical, but at this point I treat HR meetings more like police interrogations, and keep my answer short, minimal, and utilitarian, knowing what I say can and will be used against me. It's not fair to the HR people, most of them are perfectly nice, but they're in a position that's often inherently antagonistic towards workers, since they're generally only called when you're in trouble.
Precisely. I had HR literally acknowledge that my manager had objectively done NONE of the things they pledged to do, and that I had done EACH of them...
... and that they were standing by the manager's decision.
(I didn't expect any different, to be honest. I'm not that naive. But it was straight up acknowledged that the manager had been dishonest with both me, and HR, but because of their larger investment in him, that was the way they were going to go.)
I think by the time any complaint goes to HR the decisions have generally been made, or at least nearly so. HR is (I think) largely there to gather information they can use for disciplinary action and/or termination.
One place I left, medium global multinational, HR person who I thought their job was to just to be my point of contact for wrapping up & coordinating paperwork stuff like my retirement acct, return shipping company property, etc, spent a couple weeks of emails & phone calls trying both directly and indirectly to get me to say things that could possibly be used against me. It was super transparent so it was easy to just not play along without being uncivil, and only uncooperative to the unspoken parts.
So it was pointless and not stressful, but the way they kept trying became kind of interesting to just observe. Was it not obvious to them that it was obvious to me?
You have to wonder what that person's job is actually like. Do they actually care if this huge multinational, which is surely treating them even worse than me, saves a few $k on a rando employee they have no personal interaction with?
Are their own metrics impacted by the details of the people they process?
Or is it more like general unspoken manager pressure where it's a manager who is incentivised by their overall numbers and they in turn just get those numbers out of their staff.
I can imagine in many cases there may be nothing like any overt instruction like "try to get them to incriminate themselves", just formality forms with questions that actually sound constructive like "What could we do better?", etc.
But this was more than that. This person had a goal. I can understand the company having that goal, but I can't understand the person having that goal.
Oh nothing crazy like framing for a scandal or crime or anything like that.
Just low level trying to collect anything that could possibly be used to get out of paying a little, like if I didn't answer an email one day maybe that means I didn't work that day and they only have to pay me one day less on my last paycheck? Or less likely but worth a shot, anything that could be possible to turn into termination for cause, though I don't even know what they would get out of that? Does it even change anything about what they have to pay for things like unemployment insurance? I never did nor ever intended to even apply for unemployment but even if I did does that even affect them? If you quit amicably for your own reasons isn't that the best of all possible ways for an employee to leave for them? Maybe they were just trying to make sure that I wasn't going to try to say something about them afterwards and just trying to arm themselves in case I did? Actually that sounds the most likely now that I think about it, because it fits in a few different ways in their particular case.
The details will be different in each case, and in my case I don't know how to translate them to equivalent generic examples, and the actual details would get more detailed than I want to get from a non-anonymous account. Not because I have anything to hide, because I think I am actually still subject to a no-disparagement clause even though I am in no contract with them since years ago. I do know that I don't want to get into a lawyer dick-waving contest with them.
So about that clause, remember above when I said maybe they were just preparing in case I was planning to badmouth them? Let's just say there is a reason they have that clause, and so a reason they might worry about that at every termination.
Anyway, in general, no longer talking about the wonderful nameless company that I am not at all disparaging, when I say obvious I don't just mean obvious to me because I'm a perceptive genius or a wizened old vet that's seen it all. (hey I'm both but beside the point ;)
Some questions or remarks would be obviously adversarial, like asking why you took so many days off or whatever (it wasn't that). Whether you choose to engage and defend or not, either way you know the question was not for example aimed at making sure you didn't lose out on some extra days you might be entitled to. It's possible but there is no reason to operate from that assumption as most likely.
Others are indirect and less obvious, like the example I did give like if they ask why are you leaving, or even what could we do better? etc.
Those kinds of things that could be legit sincere feedback, are also merely sources of material that can be used for any purpose, not just good or sincere or constructive purposes.
You don't need to think of any particular example of a nefarious intention and then see if it is convincing or likely, or fail to. The intended purpose of the answer to any question doesn't matter. All that matters is that it is material you supply and then they have forever, in their own private files, which you are no longer in the room to weigh in on whenever someone wants to look at that file and use the material as part of whatever story they want to tell for whatever reason. So the rule for how to handle that is simple, you simply volunteer nothing in the first place, regardless, as a formality, nothing personal, etc.
Not OP but I had an experience like this recently. A toxic manager hated me and other employees, and wanted to fire me in the quickest way possible. He started to give me tasks that were clearly illegal, like sending the passwords of the company by email to random people (contractors included which made it more obvious).
I refused for two weeks while providing alternative solutions but this sociopath still was not happy. HR got involved somehow, but instead of siding with me, they told me in the nicest way that I would be a good employee if I obeyed and sent private data by email.
It was obvious this time that they were building a case against me, because I knew what they were capable of. But younger me would have happily complied and break the law because, after all, HR is good for the employees and are not talking to the managers behind your back, right?
So, the red flag is "when HR is nice to you." Never forget that they also obey the orders of the managers.
Also they will happily forge emails to fire you. I’ve seen that more than once, and they’ll pretend it never happened. That’s why you must keep traces of email conversations if you feel something is wrong.
Really re-proves the advice: Save everything. Volunteer nothing. And do both with neither emotion nor apology. It's just basic formality everyone should always do at this point.
HR works closely with and is sometimes positioned organizationally with the Legal department for obvious reasons. Their main purpose is to protect the company (first) and employees (via laws they have to follow).
Laws that protect employees are there not because companies were thinking of employees and they advocated for them.
HR people can be some of the chattiest, rumor spreading types, so expect whatever you tell one of them, all of them will know and maybe some of their office buddies. They also have some hilarious stories.
Nope, it's not cynical. Everyone needs to know that HR is there to protect and benefit the company, not the individual. There is a truckload of rules and laws that a company needs to comply with in order to not get fined or sued. Additionally, the company must coordinate the human capital which is why the department exists. Helping the employee is a side effect. It's not its primary role. Always keep in mind that you are not paying the HR employee's salary. It's the company. Therefore you are not the department's primary client.
They are generally very friendly, and they give an aura of "we're just here to help". I don't think people will fall for this more than once, but it's pretty easy for me to see why someone would think they're "on your side".
It's right there in the name: "human resources". Employees are the resource, and HR exists to help maximize the benefit the company extracts from that resource.
Are you really not sure why anyone would think that way? Do you really believe every single person is (or should be) utterly cynical?
In a lot of orgs, an HR rep is the first person a new hire will interact with and IME they're usually very helpful, and kind -- at that point. It's not hard to see why someone unfamiliar with corporate politics or structure would see HR favorably if that's their only experience.
I think my point is, HR reps can be rather deceptive, and in some extreme cases, deliberately so. So I understand your point from a logical perspective, but thankfully, the reality is logic doesn't drive everyone.
There's a certain portion of the population who isn't skeptical of kindness, and accepts it at face value.
Chalk it up to naivety or youthful/willful ignorance, if you must. Whatever the reason there are folks who choose to see the good in people, and not constantly question their motives.
As a reformed cynic, I'd really recommend giving it a try. I personally find it less depressing way to walk though the world.
I do generally try and assume the best out of people. Most people aren't assholes, they're perfectly nice, and they probably aren't out to rob you or ruin your day.
Corporations are not people. A corporation is basically a superorganism made up of people, but functions differently. The HR person is probably a genuinely decent human, but fundamentally they still have to do their job, which is (like basically all of us) dictated by their higher-ups. Their job isn't to be your best friend, it's to make the company more money.
Ideally, it is by resolving the problem. Sometimes they need to fire someone, and in order to fire someone without the risk of a lawsuit (in a lot of jurisdictions) they kind of have to substantiate the case. Usually they and the manager will put you into some kind of "performance improvement plan" or some kind of "attitude coaching" so that they can pretend that they tried to work with you, but they will also just try and look for you to slip up and mention when you did something unkosher.
Generally by the time HR is called, it's too late, they've already decided to fire you and they're just going through the motions.
I'm sure most of the HR people are lovely humans, but that's just orthogonal to the point.
There is nothing cynical or about "corporate politics", or about any moral judgement including kindness in my previous comment.
It was purely factual and about duties (as in duties of an employee).
I think it is when people mix up all the moral concept you mention with facts and legal duties that people indeed get indeed confused.
HR may absolutely appear friendly and helpful, and they can really be so because it is their job to help you succeed as an employee, that is to say to deliver value for the company. It is not their job to help you act against the company. In fact it is their job, as it is for all employees, to work in the company's best interests (that's called fiduciary duty).
Perhaps another issue is that some, perhaps naive, people do not understand the nature (in the factual and legal sense) of employment.
But can't you see how the distinction between helping you succeed as an employee and a person might be murky for someone less experienced in the corporate world?
For many people, if someone is helping them and being extremely nice, they're not going to question why; they're just gonna sidle up with them and enjoy the time with their new friend.
Depending on company culture HR workflows can exist alongside regular company workflows, especially for topics related to internal recruitment, yearly reviews, performance reviews, retrospectives, new hires, team building, the possibilities are endless.
Right - 90% of my interactions with 'HR' are for interview scheduling. Other 10% are with trouble using benefits.
I'm completely aware of "HR is not your friend", but I've never had a meeting with HR, nor a situation where someone pretty cynical would treat it as a police interrogation.
Only a few times, really only when I've gotten into some kind of trouble. Though I got laid off three times in the last two years, so I have had a lot more experience with HR than I have really wanted.
Absolutely. HR employees are after all just like regular employees. They are getting paid to act according to the requirements of the employer. Meaning that they are incentivized to act in the best interest of the company and not of their coworkers.
It's admittedly pretty cynical, but at this point I treat HR meetings more like police interrogations, and keep my answer short, minimal, and utilitarian, knowing what I say can and will be used against me. It's not fair to the HR people, most of them are perfectly nice, but they're in a position that's often inherently antagonistic towards workers, since they're generally only called when you're in trouble.