A sharp social media critique from workforce strategist Amanda Goodall has reignited fierce discussions about Human Resources departments across corporate India. Known online as @thejobchick, Goodall posted a blunt assessment on X, questioning the fundamental role of HR in today's organizations.
The Core Criticism: Revenue, Morale and Protection
Goodall launched a direct attack on common HR functions. She claimed these departments generate no actual revenue for companies. Instead, she argued they often weaken employee morale through excessive policy enforcement. Her most pointed criticism suggested HR primarily exists to protect employers rather than support employees.
The strategist went even further in her provocative post. She proposed that businesses might operate more smoothly without most HR roles. According to her view, companies could become quicker and happier workplaces by removing these positions altogether.
Why This Debate Resonates Now
This provocation struck a deep nerve across professional networks. The post spread rapidly, drawing reactions from employees, managers and HR professionals alike. The intensity reflects broader workplace anxieties that have built up over recent years.
HR teams have frequently become the most visible representatives of difficult corporate decisions. From mass layoffs announced over video calls to strict return-to-office mandates, HR often appears as the enforcer of management priorities. For many employees, this has transformed their perception of HR from potential advocate to clear extension of corporate control.
The Structural Reality Behind the Perception
Goodall's assertion that HR exists to "protect the company, not you" resonated because it reflects structural realities. HR departments ultimately report to company leadership. Their official tasks include minimizing legal risk, ensuring regulatory compliance and maintaining policy consistency across organizations.
During periods of downsizing or corporate restructuring, this alignment becomes especially visible. HR professionals must implement decisions made at higher levels, which often reinforces employee mistrust and frustration toward the department.
The Measurement Challenge
Another fault line exposed by this debate involves measurement. In corporate environments driven by metrics, revenue and efficiency, HR's impact proves difficult to quantify precisely. Critics argue that people teams add layers of process that can slow decision-making.
They also suggest HR expands organizational headcount without facing the same performance standards as revenue-generating functions. As companies tighten budgets during economic uncertainty, investments made during growth periods face new scrutiny. Employee engagement surveys, wellness programs and expanded people operations now undergo serious questioning about their return on investment.
Social Media Echoes the Divide
The online response revealed starkly divided opinions. One user strongly agreed with Goodall's perspective, writing "I cant change your mind because I could not agree with you MORE!" Another comment noted "HRs purpose is mostly to protect the business, not the individual. Some exceptions but not relevant in the grand scheme. Once you understand that, it makes a lot more sense."
The HR Defense
HR professionals have mounted a vigorous defense against these criticisms. Many argue that effective HR work remains largely invisible to most employees. When lawsuits get avoided, compliance failures get prevented or toxic managers get addressed early, there is typically no public recognition for these successes.
They also emphasize that HR frequently implements decisions taken by boards and senior executives. This makes them the public face of actions they did not originally create or approve. One defender highlighted legal realities, writing "If we played by your rules, those businesses would face hundreds of lawsuits requiring massive litigation that would far exceed the cost of an HR department. My guess is sexual harassment cases would go through the roof."
Beyond One Department: Broader Implications
Ultimately, this controversy extends far beyond any single corporate department. It touches fundamental questions about workplace structure, employee advocacy and corporate responsibility. The debate reflects evolving expectations about how companies should balance legal protection with genuine employee support.
As organizations continue adapting to post-pandemic realities and economic pressures, these questions about HR's role will likely persist. The conversation sparked by Goodall's post reveals deep-seated tensions that many workplaces must now address directly.
