.png)
Imagine the state of HR when employees get to the point where they would happily replace HR with AI. I mean not to integrate AI into HR. Replace them. Watch the video below, she raises really good questions in there.
But why is that? Well, they say that HR is not fair and is biased and they welcome the idea of AI conducted investigation and disciplinary.
Now this is big and if this won't open HR's eyes then I don't know what will.
If I am honest I would rather have AI investigating or disciplining me than HR. No doubt I would trust the system more to be objective.
Yesterday, I was talking to a leader who has a massive whistleblowing case on his hand. I asked where is the whistleblower? We fired the guy, was the answer to which I asked why? Because you cannot name and shame people, it shows a lack of loyalty.
I died by the time he finished the sentence, but I probed further and found that the employee went through the proper whistleblowing channels and claimed nothing that was not factual.
I also found that this person tried to bring this misconduct to the attention of his managers, leaders, and then HR. They all brushed him aside and basically told him this is how things work here despite the matter falling under gross misconduct in HR's own disciplinary charter.
The guy is fired (I don't know anything about him) but if you ask me I would have fired HR for this. Based on my initial information about the matter, a simple investigation would have revealed the truth allowing them to fix the situation. But as I gathered, the leader didn't like it because it is now reflecting badly on him within the company and told HR to get rid of the guy.
Of course, the leader is wrong, however, executing a wrong order is even more so. HR should have stayed objective and proceeded accordingly then handle mediation after the case is closed.
We have seen this way too many times, right? HR is either not having the power to fulfil their role according to the code of conduct they have agreed to (either by a professional HR body or by the organisation) or they are either incompetent or part of the game.
The reason I like whistleblowing cases is that they tend to be structured and factual. There is logic and stamina behind them. They are not the typically upset employee who throws random stuff at everyone with no evidence. I have never seen a whistleblowing case study where the person just blew the whistle. They all tried and tried, over and over again raising the issue with no success.
And guess what? They always went to HR, their last resort, their last hope for being listened to but all they got was rejection.
So they blew the whistle. Have they won? No, they lost their jobs or were forced to leave (constructive dismissal) eventually. They all knew the risk and for this reason, maybe we should be listening to them because the black sheep is sometimes the only one telling the truth.
AI would have established that:-)
I urge the organisation to bulletproof its HR when it comes to ethical & legal decision-making. Organisations must have a code of conduct for HR professionals that must be followed and in case HR is forced to act otherwise by the leaders it must take it further. Those of us with professional HR qualifications have signed a code of conduct but those without formal qualifications are left unprotected and employers can put this in place by tomorrow.
Who is protecting your HR?
Comments