Human Resources (HR)—the department that is “for the people.” But ask employees or job candidates, and you will hear a different story. HR often designs processes that make sense on paper but completely fail in practice, I argue.
Instead of championing people, they end up enforcing systems that alienate both employees and candidates. In this article, we will look into why employees “hate” HR, expose the glaring discrepancies of modern HR practices, and discuss how HR can finally learn to prioritise the human experience by adopting a user-first approach.
HR’s broken relationship with employees
HR claims to be the advocate for employees, but too often they act like the company’s police, focusing on policies that benefit the organisation rather than the workforce. Employees see HR as the enforcer of bureaucratic red tape and out-of-touch policies.
One of the biggest hypocrisies is employment agreements. These contracts have become increasingly one-sided, favoring companies with provisions that allow them to terminate employees without cause or severance, while companies continue to bemoan the “lack of loyalty” in today’s workforce. The message is clear: loyalty is a one-way street. Employees are expected to give their all, but the company can sever ties on a whim. This imbalance leaves employees wondering: why should they be loyal to an organisation that shows no commitment in return?
Real-world example: WeWork’s mass layoffs
When WeWork imploded in 2019, the company laid off thousands of employees with little regard for those who helped build the business. While executive leadership walked away with golden parachutes and lucrative severance packages, many lower-level employees were left scrambling with minimal compensation. This double standard—generous treatment for leadership but cutthroat policies for everyone else—shows how companies expect loyalty but give little in return.
Result: Employees game the system
As a result of these hypocrisies, employees learn to game the system. Rather than buying into company loyalty, they disengage and focus on protecting themselves. When trust is eroded, employees focus on survival, rather than “going above and beyond.”
Job candidates: Lost in the hiring void
For job seekers, the frustration with HR starts long before they’re hired. Many companies rely on applicant tracking systems (ATS) to streamline hiring, but candidates often find themselves lost in a void of automated responses and ghosting. The ATS filters resumes by keywords, but this reduces applicants to mere data points, with no regard for personal experience or unique skills. In return, candidates are met with, complete silence or worse, the impersonal, almost offensive automated response “We have received your application and have decided to not move forward with your candidacy, good bye”
The irony? HR demands authenticity from candidates. Job seekers are expected to pour time and energy into personalized cover letters and detailed applications, yet they’re met with nothing more than a generic rejection—if they hear back at all. This is another glaring hypocrisy: HR asks for effort and authenticity but gives nothing back in return.
Result: Candidates Find Loopholes
Candidates are increasingly finding ways around the system. Instead of hoping an ATS will notice their resume, they’re going straight to hiring managers via LinkedIn or professional networks. And when they do play by the rules, they’re forced to game the system, keyword stuffing their resumes just to get through the algorithmic filter.
Real-world example: Amazon’s ATS problem
Amazon’s hiring practices are notorious for relying heavily on ATS systems. Many candidates have complained that their resumes never even reach a human, leading to frustration and the perception that Amazon values efficiency over fairness. By prioritising speed over humanity, Amazon has created a candidate experience that feels impersonal and demoralizing.
Staples of bad HR practices
HR isn’t just guilty of poor hiring practices or one-sided employment agreements. There are several key areas where HR alienates employees with hollow, performative actions that don’t match their stated goals:
Real-world example: Tesla’s whistleblower problem
Tesla has faced multiple whistleblower cases in which employees alleged that their concerns about unsafe working conditions were ignored or led to retaliation. Instead of investigating these claims and addressing safety issues, HR’s handling of whistleblowing complaints reflected a clear priority: protect the company, not the employee. This approach only reinforces the belief that HR is not there to help, but to protect the company’s bottom line.
Recent trends making HR even more unpopular
With the rise of remote work, HR’s out-of-touch policies have become even more apparent. Many companies have doubled down on micromanagement rather than adapting to a more flexible work culture. By adopting invasive monitoring tools that track employees’ every move—keystrokes, mouse movements, and idle time—companies send a clear message: we don’t trust you.
At a time when employees value autonomy and work-life balance, HR’s heavy-handed approach has backfired. Instead of fostering productivity, it has bred resentment.
Real-world example: Activision blizzard’s remote monitoring
At Activision Blizzard, employees voiced concerns about the company’s use of surveillance software to monitor remote workers. The result? Employees felt they were being treated like machines, not professionals. This over-the-top monitoring only deepened the rift between HR and employees, fueling the perception that HR exists to control rather than support.
Another trend worsening HR’s image is the impersonal handling of layoffs. Tech giants like Google, Meta, and Twitter have made headlines for mass layoffs that were handled in cold, detached ways—employees finding out via impersonal emails or suddenly losing access to company systems without warning. These companies—despite their reputations for innovation—show how HR can completely fail when it comes to handling sensitive, human-centered issues.
Processes that drive people to find loopholes
HR might seem obssessed with rigid processes and that doesn’t just frustrate employees and candidates—it encourages them to seek out workarounds that further undermine the system. When employees don’t trust the process, they look for ways to bypass it:
Time for HR to think like UX designers
If HR truly wants to fix its broken image, it needs to adopt a user-first approach—just like customer experience or UX design teams do. You wouldn’t design a product without considering how people will interact with it, so why would you design HR processes without considering the employee or candidate experience?
Common solutions:
I argue that HR’s failure to adopt a user-centric mindset is why employees and candidates alike have grown to distrust them. If HR truly wants to be “for the people,” they need to start treating people like valued partners—not obstacles or liabilities. That means transparency, respect, and systems that actually reflect the human experience.