Corporate HR policy types don't seem to understand that Operating Policy & Procedure is for everyday operational issues. They somehow can't comprehend that atypical issues often require atypical responses, some of which will run counter to stated procedure. That's why every single policy manual I've ever seen contains a phrase something along the lines of "<Org Name> reserves the right to revise, restate, or apply this operating policy as needed for situations, conditions, or other occurrances outside normal operational parameters."
Brad
Having been through a certain amount of HR training and reading examples of things done right and wrong by HR depts. I came to realize, that HR depts. are going to operate inexorably towards the goal of defending the entity they work for by enforcing as strictly as possible company policy regardless of other consequences.
It wasn't until recently that the phrase "stay in your lane" became current and that, it dawned on me, is a perfect way to say what and how HR enforces policy. This manager, while brave and committed, did not stay in his lane and thus had to go. There are plenty of ways to leave your lane and HR will sanction you for any one of them. And shouldn't this be the default position for HR?
For the HR types there was nothing to think about. Policy comes before PR considerations, and that's even if they considered the PR implications which they probably didn't. And really, do they need to consider PR issues?
I don't blame the HR folks for this, in their view they were protecting the entity, which is their first duty. They are not the PR people, they are not in the C-suite, they're not the legal team, they're worker bees that do not have a lot of discretion in how they operate.
Imagine what could have happened if the manager hadn't been fired and the company lawyers demanded to know why this insurance liability was still working for the company and exposing them to potential legal problems.
Some HR person(s) might have lost their job(s). For failing to do their job. It would have been a totally justified termination. And this would have happened totally out of the public eye and there would have been no outrage to get them rehired.
It's not fair to the HR folks to expect them to consider every potential issue that might come up in making personnel decisions. There are way too many variables. As long as the process conformed to both employment law and company policy, the HR people are blameless.
I say that this turned out right. The manager did what he thought was right, HR did their job, and the C-suite folks did theirs by overruling HR.
The process could have been faster and thus less damaging to company PR, but live and learn.
