The Leadership Line

The Myths HR Never Told You

• Tammy Rogers and Scott Burgmeyer • Season 6 • Episode 30

Share episode

What if many of the HR "rules" you've always followed aren't actually rules at all? This eye-opening exploration of workplace urban legends challenges common misconceptions about human resources practices that have become deeply embedded in organizational cultures.

We start by tackling perhaps the biggest myth of all: that HR exists primarily to ensure employee happiness. Tracing the evolution from the old "personnel department" hostess-like function to today's strategic partner role, we reveal how progressive organizations leverage HR to align human capital with business objectives. With people costs typically representing about 60% of organizational overhead, strategic HR focuses on future skill needs, resource optimization, and preparing for tomorrow's challenges rather than simply making people happy or ensuring compliance.

Another persistent myth we debunk is the belief that companies must treat every employee identically. This misunderstanding of equity versus equality leads organizations to implement one-size-fits-all policies that frustrate high performers and fail to address underperformance. We discuss how organizations can legally establish different benefits, rules, and opportunities based on performance, hierarchical level, or other non-discriminatory factors.

At the heart of these misconceptions lies an important question: what's your organization's risk tolerance? Much like financial advisors assess investment risk comfort, companies must determine their appetite for employment-related risk. Zero-risk approaches often create different kinds of problems, limiting flexibility and innovation. We explore how organizations can balance compliance with strategic flexibility, making decisions based on legitimate business needs rather than fear of potential litigation.

Ready to free your organization from unnecessary HR constraints? Listen now to discover how questioning these urban legends could transform your workplace culture and unlock new potential in your team. Then share your experiences with HR myths that have affected your organization—we'd love to hear which misconceptions you've encountered!

Karman:

Good morning Scott and Tammy.

Tammy:

Echo, echo, echo. Good morning Karman.

Scott:

Podcast, podcast, podcast Karman, good to see you.

Karman:

It feels like the podcast introduction equivalent of a vaping store. A vaping store, a vaping store Like all the lights and the flashing things and like I've been trying to figure out what's the culture behind, like the signage at vaping stores, and I would have to do a lot more research.

Tammy:

I didn't know that you went to vaping stores a lot more research.

Karman:

I didn't know that you went to vaping stores. No, I'm just driving past them, you know, like at nine o'clock at night, when everything else in the strip mall is closed and there's the vaping store with lots of lights and action, like I'm missing out on something here you are Absolutely.

Tammy:

So we had someone in first class last night as I was flying vaping on the plane?

Scott:

Did they kick him out?

Tammy:

They didn't say anything.

Scott:

Oh, for f**ks sake.

Tammy:

Yeah, I was like that person's over there and you know they make those little vapes, nowes now I guess that really small that don't have smoke or whatever and they're over there and I was like I called the attendant over, I'm like she's like what?

Karman:

like she goes, didn't do anything even Tammy's super low d notice someone's sucking out a vape um, I sat across from a woman in the emergency room the other night who was vaping in the ER. Nice, yeah, I was like, wow, anyway, that's not what we're here to talk about today. We're not here to talk about vaping. No, no, last week we talked a little bit about decision fatigue and what are the decisions that you should be making, and in that conversation we touched a little bit on like things that leader sometimes thinks they should be deciding like it's supposed to be their decision for whatever reason, and maybe it shouldn't be. And so what I want to explore this week is other things that we sometimes think are true and it turns out they're just urban legends, and specifically, I want to talk about HR-related urban legends. Like somebody asked me the other day when they were interviewing like, do we have to ask every interviewee the exact same questions? That was something.

Scott:

Actually what's best if you just do it by robot, so all the questions are just recorded, because it is just like check the box. As long as you ask those questions, you can hire anyone.

Tammy:

Actually, during COVID, people actually sent questions to folks and said go ahead and tape yourself on Zoom and send it in, and that was a hiring practice in COVID. Just give them the questions, let them record their answers and turn them in. Can you even imagine? I love this, Karman? What is the stuff that we sometimes think HR won't let us or HR themselves have decided it's a rule. But it's not really a rule, right, it's a preference, All right. Okay, Scott, you got one.

Scott:

Yes, I think probably there's a couple. I'm trying to decide which one to go with. I think it's. I'm just going to go for the biggie. I think HR is here to make sure that employees are satisfied and happy.

Tammy:

That's a myth.

Karman:

I'm pretty sure the last time I checked, there are people who would say the opposite. Hr is here to make sure people are dissatisfied and unhappy.

Scott:

Oh, and you know what? I think that's a myth as well. I mean, if you really think about it, they're there to ensure that the the company is sustainable and protected and things are fair and equitable. I mean, that really is their role. Ultimately, now, depending on your perspective of HR, are you, you know, are you looking at HR as a compliance house, or is HR a strategic partner? Now we can have a very different conversation about, kind of the purpose and role of HR.

Tammy:

Well, and if we go back historically, you know, historically HR was the people place and you know that's where you were friendly and taken care of and all that kind of stuff, you know, and it was more around personnel.

Tammy:

That was the phraseology that we used back in in the dark ages and it really was. You know, hr was more hostess kind of right. And then HR became compliance right and compliance and regulatory kind of issues, making sure that we followed all the laws and all those things were taken care of, and it really became a protection for the organization and mitigating risk. And we've come a long ways from that and yet we still have people who hold on to those two very old fashioned ideas that that's the purpose of HR. And the purpose of HR is not to be the hostess and the purpose of HR is not simply compliance. It really, if you are in that chief human resource officer kind of role or if you're in an organization who sees human resources in a place that says, you know, we people, the people who work here, make up about 60% of what it costs on, you know, our overhead, that's just kind of salaries and benefits. It's about 60% for most organizations kind of salaries and benefits. It's about 60% for most organizations. How do we ensure that that resource, that organizational resource, is being utilized in the way that it optimizes the opportunity for the organization and actually optimizes it for the human being as well in that space, and when we do that, we're being good stewards of that particular resource. How do we do that? If you're really strategic, you're saying where's the company going to be in three years? What skill sets do we need in three years? How do we build those skill sets so that these people are ready for that? How do we make sure that we're really nimble and we can be moving people from place to place so that they can be plugged in, instead of sorry, that person is sitting over there, bored out of their mind because we're not giving them the kind of work that encourages them? There's so much there that can be strategically used in an effective way to move the organization forward.

Tammy:

Many organizations are stuck in one of those two old-fashioned kind of ways of looking at human resources instead of seeing how they can be the business partner that prepares us for the future. And that really is, I think, where HR is going in the future in that space. It's not the future today in really progressive organizations. So, scott, I agree with you HR is here to take care of the people is an urban myth. It's not its role. I would say this here's another one you have to treat everybody exactly the same and that if you did this for Susie, you have to do that exact same thing for Jose, and if you don't, there's a lawsuit. No way, that is what many, many, many people believe. They say equitable, which is what you. The word that you use, scott, is equal, and that is actually not accurate.

Scott:

And it's when you start to dissect the laws and the rules, there is yes, you do. Actually, you don't have to be equitable, you can be inequitable if you want to right. You just have a risk of a lawsuit that someone could claim right, that it was inequitable or it was unfair because of this or that. Right Now, most people look at it and say, hey, we want to be equitable or as fair as we can be, and I can have different rules for different segments of the population. I can have different benefits for different segments of the population. So you could say the executives get this and the frontline staff get that, Admin managers get that. All of that is absolutely legal and allowable.

Scott:

Most organizations look at it and say I don't want the administrative burden, I just want to make it easy. So I'm just going to make it the same, and there is some rationale to that, because if I don't have administrative burden, it's just easier. When Jose comes and complains, you can say, hey, no way, Jose, don't complain. See what I did there, Because we do it like this for everyone and you know. So there I get it. How is that helping you? That's to me, is the question that how is keeping it the same, helping you? Is it doing what you need it to do?

Tammy:

I would actually tell you and this is one of the pet peeves that we hear all the time is that we have underperformers. We have people who are performing, you know, solidly, and then we have super performers, and if you actually treat all those folks the same so you're talking about segments in terms of hierarchy and those types of things but one of the things that I see all the time is these super performers who are saying you are treating me like an underperformer and they'll say well, we have to treat everybody the same. No, we don't. Okay, One of the things inside of organizations is, if we have underperformers, we should be treating them differently. They do not get the same privileges.

Tammy:

Now, pay and compensation and benefits, yeah, okay, but when it comes to other things, accountability should mean I am having these kind of conversations with this person and I have someone who is a superstar and have a totally different set of conversations when opportunities come up, this person is eligible for those opportunities. My underperformer is not. We should have a very distinct way, different way, of treating people depending on their performance inside of the organization. And unfortunately, we hear too often well, we have to treat everybody the same. No, don't treat your superstars like everybody else, because your superstars will leave. Right, Scott, you got another one, yeah.

Scott:

Well, I was going to do the. It's really the one Karman mentioned at the beginning. We have to ask people that we interview the same questions and you don't.

Tammy:

So, scott, where do these things come from, right? I mean all honesty, these restrictions? Why do they raise their heads and why are we so conservative?

Scott:

I mean, I believe it's two things and they may be interrelated, but I in my mind, when I think, well, how come, why? Why is that happening? I think people read the laws, or the laws, and they interpret it in a certain way, sometimes too rigid.

Tammy:

They're mitigating risk to the place where there is zero risk.

Scott:

Zero risk, right? Yeah, so I'm going to read it and if I do A, b, c and D, we're protected and I don't have to worry. I think the other thing is, either they got burned or they read about company X got sued because of this or that and, like whoa, I don't want to be sued. So, therefore, I'm going to put in this new rule or policy or what have you, and again, I don't want to be sued either. That is not a place I really want to spend time, and if that is driving your course of action, that, to me, perpetuates this. You're a compliance house, hr, versus saying are we going to be a strategic partner? Hey, Karman, you're the CEO, you're the business owner? Hey, we have this risk, we could do this or this.

Scott:

I recommend option B. It does have a little bit of risk, but you know what. You know, we're 48 employees. The likelihood of someone doing this, this and this is low. Are you okay with that? Right, very different than we're doing. Option A, because I want to, you know, be Fort Knox, and so I think it's those two things, tammy, if you hear that, is there a different perspective that you have? I mean, those are mine.

Tammy:

Actually the piece about this, and I think this is the most important If you have a financial advisor, one of the first questions they ask you is what's your comfort level with risk? I do think that if I'm in an HR position, so I'm a chief human resource officer one of the questions that I'm going to ask is hey, as an executive team, let's talk about risk, right, what is our organization's risk tolerance? That conversation is one that now determines, kind of, our levels of some of the decision-making that we do. And I will tell you, it's not unusual for a legal team to come in and say I'm taking all risk out of that. Okay, like here's the zero risk line. Well, unfortunately, when we go to some of these zero risk lines, what we are doing is we're causing ourselves pain and suffering in another way. All right. So for me like I am pretty obviously Scott and I own this place, right, we we made a decision years and years and years ago that we could handle the risk of being self-employed, to own companies, to have staff, to have payroll, all of that kind of stuff that's risky to a lot of people. So Scott and I have a higher level of risk than some. But this. If you're inside of an organization, this is really an executive decision. What is the level of risk that we're comfortable with? And in that particular spot? That's that first piece, and then all of our HR policies need to align with that level of risk.

Tammy:

And there are times that, yeah, I'm going to do something, and is it possible that that could open us up for someone saying yep, and now I'm going to see you, yep. And then the question is are you going to fight it? Because I will tell you, if you don't, then the next person is going to learn that lesson and they're going to follow in that person's footsteps, and on and on and on. So what I will tell you is that, yeah, sometimes there are things worth fighting for and I don't want to have our organization bow to the fact that one person might sue us. Okay, I'll take that risk, I'll stand in that space, I'll win, because I have been very careful about the decisions that I've made in that particular area and show folks that we can have this flexibility of how we treat people, we can have this flexibility in interviewing, we can have this right.

Tammy:

All of that Because if I was doing it in a way that still met the law right, without going all the way to like there is no interpretation whatsoever. No interpretation whatsoever, then honestly, you may be open for people coming after you and if you can justify your decisions and how you made those decisions and it wasn't based upon bias you'll win. And I think that's the thing about we are handcuffed in this spot of thinking that it's going to be around bias. Someone's going to say we're biased and we're going to end up in a court of law. Was your decision biased or was it based upon? Hey, we're meeting the diverse needs of our workforce and if we're meeting the diverse needs of our workforce and it's not in a biased category, you as an organization shouldn't be worried about a lawsuit.