When HR Becomes Its Own Worst Enemy

The Crisis of Professional Courage in the Nigerian Workplace

By Frank Ofili

A human resources manager is, no doubt, obliged to take instructions from top Management. But there is a fundamental difference between taking instructions and surrendering professional judgment.

I have increasingly come to believe that human resource (HR) practitioners themselves are sometimes their profession’s greatest obstacle.

How?

By failing to give Management the right advice. By abandoning due process to satisfy powerful executives. By implementing decisions they know are wrong. And by sacrificing professional integrity on the altar of job security and executive approval.

When HR stops advising and starts applauding every management decision, it ceases to be a strategic partner and becomes a rubber stamp.

Consider this scenario:

A company CEO instructs HR to recruit an experienced graduate as an Accounts Officer at a gross salary of ₦140,000 per month. The location of the job is Lekki, Lagos.

A compliant HR Manager will simply recruit whoever accepts the offer.

A competent HR Manager will ask: Is the salary competitive? Can it attract the experience required? What will commuting cost the employee? Can the Organisation retain the successful candidate at that rate?

These are not academic questions. They are business questions.

The argument is not that nobody will accept ₦140,000. In an economy where unemployment is widespread, many applicants might. The question is whether the Organisation can attract and retain the calibre of professional it wants at that price.

Unfortunately, some HR practitioners hide behind the familiar refrain: “There are many unemployed graduates out there.”

But the availability of desperate job seekers does not make every salary reasonable. Neither does a pile of applications guarantee a successful recruitment exercise.

Poor remuneration has consequences that extend far beyond employee dissatisfaction.

It can contribute to:

1, Low job satisfaction: Employees who feel inadequately rewarded may become disengaged and lose commitment to organisational goals.

2. Attitudinal problems: Absenteeism, lateness, declining motivation and reduced productivity may become more common.

3. Ethical vulnerabilities: Financial pressure may make some employees more susceptible to bribery, fraud, theft and other illicit means of supplementing their income. Poor pay does not excuse misconduct, but organisations must not ignore foreseeable risks.

4. Declining professionalism: Poor customer service, careless work, indifference to quality and unwillingness to take initiative may undermine standards.

5. High employee turnover: Experienced employees leave for better opportunities, forcing the organisation to incur repeated recruitment and training costs.

6. Organisational instability: Constant staff exits disrupt operations, weaken teamwork and erode institutional knowledge.

7. Stunted growth: An organisation that cannot attract and retain the talent it needs may struggle to improve productivity, innovate, expand and compete.

These outcomes are not inevitable, and remuneration is not the only factor influencing employee behaviour. But they are risks that HR must help Management understand.

A company that cannot afford an experienced Accounts Officer in Lekki should reconsider its budget, expectations or recruitment strategy. It should not expect HR to bridge the gap between an unrealistic salary and an ambitious job specification through wishful thinking.

HR is neither Management’s adversary nor an employee union. Its role is to provide professional advice that balances business objectives, employee interests, legal or statutory obligations and organisational sustainability.

The problem, however, goes beyond remuneration.

In some organisations, recruitment outcomes are manipulated to favour preferred candidates. Disciplinary procedures are selectively applied. Performance appraisals become instruments of punishment. Policies are enforced strictly against junior employees but conveniently ignored when senior executives are involved.

This is not HR practice. It is the institutionalisation of double standards.

Why do HR practitioners tolerate such practices?

For some, it is fear of losing their jobs. For others, it is the desire to remain in the Managing Director’s good books. In some workplaces, questioning authority is punished while unquestioning compliance is rewarded.

The fear may be understandable, but it does not erase professional responsibility.

HR is neither Management’s adversary nor an employee union. Its role is to provide professional advice that balances business objectives, employee interests, legal or statutory obligations and organisational sustainability.

Professional loyalty is not blind obedience. Constructive dissent is not insubordination.

When Management proposes an unrealistic salary, HR should present market evidence. When a disciplinary decision lacks a sound basis, HR should say so. When an instruction violates the law or established ethical standards, HR must not facilitate wrong-doing merely to preserve a relationship with the boss.

The profession must therefore embrace some fundamental changes:

• Replace compliance with professional counsel. Help Management make better decisions, not merely implement existing ones.
• Make evidence non-negotiable. Use salary benchmarks, turnover data, productivity figures and recruitment outcomes to challenge assumptions.
• Document material advice. Record significant risks, recommendations and management decisions.
• Build commercial competence. HR must understand the financial consequences of poor recruitment, inadequate remuneration and excessive turnover.
• Measure outcomes, not obedience. Filling a vacancy is not success if the candidate is unsuitable or leaves shortly afterwards.
• Demand ethical leadership. Boards and chief executives must create an environment where professional advice is welcomed rather than punished.

Of course, not every organisation can afford market-leading salaries. HR must understand commercial constraints and propose workable alternatives. But Management must also understand that minimizing payroll costs at all costs can create much greater expenses elsewhere.

The bottom line is this:

Management must accept responsibility for its decisions. HR must accept responsibility for the quality of its advice.

A HR professional cannot knowingly facilitate a bad decision and subsequently blame Management for the consequences.

The Nigerian workplace needs HR practitioners who possess not only technical competence but also professional courage: the courage to challenge unrealistic expectations, resist improper instructions and tell Management uncomfortable truths.

A good HR practitioner is not one who never disagrees with the boss. It is one whose judgment Management can trust, whose advice is evidence-based and whose integrity survives pressure.

If HR cannot tell Management the truth, who will?

And if HR will not defend the integrity of its own profession, who should?