HR or Hardly Relevant?
I’ve always been a huge fan of Leanne Hughes—seriously, fangirl level. I first discovered her podcast, The First Time Facilitator, back in coaching school, and her raw, unfiltered style has stuck with me ever since. In an industry where valuable insights are often locked behind paywalls, Leanne’s willingness to share real, practical knowledge is refreshing. Recently, while tuning into her new daily podcast, Leanne on Demand, I couldn’t help but notice how the conversation between her and Alan Weiss, author of Million Dollar Consultant, naturally turned to HR. Alan dismissed HR as “Hardly Relevant”—a zinger that made me laugh out loud in disbelief.
Far be it from me to disagree with Alan Weiss—I’ve read his book multiple times and learned a lot from him—but here, I have to push back. The “Hardly Relevant” label misses the point entirely. Good HR professionals know that there are plenty of bad HR people out there; this sentiment isn’t unique to HR—it’s something you’ll hear from engineers, doctors, attorneys, chefs, and every other profession.
Hardly Relevant?
In our own HR consulting work, about half of our clients already have HR teams in place. When we set out in this division of the business, I’d expected to primarily work with organizations lacking HR. Instead, we find ourselves servicing about 50% of clients with established HR departments and acting as the sounding board for some of the sharpest HR professionals around. Turns out, there’s a reason for that. When you have an issue at work, you take it to HR. Yet when HR itself faces issues, who do they turn to? Us.
The biggest complaint from our HR colleagues? A lack of respect for their work. They’re not seen as equals by their peers, their concerns get dismissed in leadership meetings, and their recommendations on personnel issues are often brushed aside or outright ignored. So, if our clients find themselves struggling to be seen as relevant, are they, in fact, not relevant?
I still disagree with Mr. Weiss. But if I’m going to disagree with the Million Dollar Consultant, I better have a strong argument, right?
The Argument
When a machine malfunctions, there’s a systematic approach to diagnosing and fixing the issue. We inspect it, replace worn parts, lubricate moving components, and schedule routine maintenance to prevent future breakdowns. We recognize that a machine’s performance hinges on regular care—its gears, belts, and circuits all need attention and upkeep. This process is methodical and, in many ways, a testament to our commitment to maintaining peak performance. Yet, when a human being starts to struggle, the response is strikingly different. Instead of stopping to assess whether there’s a need for support or renewal, we often jump straight to judgment. The assumption is that the person is inherently flawed, rather than recognizing that, like any machine, people require proper care, rest, and occasional recalibration.
This disparity in treatment reveals a deep lack of empathy in how we manage human potential. We’re quick to replace a person who falters—much like we’d discard an old piece of equipment—instead of investing in their recovery. The irony is palpable: we invest in preventive maintenance for our machines, ensuring they run smoothly and reliably, yet we neglect the very human elements that drive our organizations. When someone shows signs of wear, we’re more apt to criticize or sideline them than to provide the nurturing environment they need to recover and excel. This lack of “maintenance” for our people not only stifles growth and innovation, but it also sends a damaging message—that human effort is disposable rather than valued. In an ideal world, our approach to human development would mirror our commitment to caring for machines, recognizing that sustained performance comes from ongoing investment in both people and processes.
So, if not “Hardly Relevant,” then what? Human Relevant.
I don’t wholly disagree with Alan’s razor-sharp observation about HR, but I believe it’s time to redefine its role—from being seen as “hardly relevant” to truly Human Relevant. Think of your organization as a compass, where the CEO points the arrow, setting the overall direction. But it’s the HR department—the magnet at the heart of your organizational compass—that pulls that direction into alignment with your core values. HR isn’t there simply to follow orders; it’s there to ensure that every individual is connected to the company’s true north. Just as a compass relies on its magnet to keep the needle steady, an effective HR function is essential for grounding your people in the company’s vision, nurturing talent, and fostering growth.
When HR reduces its role to just enforcing policy and compliance, it misses out on a huge strategic advantage. An HR function that focuses solely on the rule book loses touch with the very people who can take the company to the next level. Operations might dismiss nurturing as “fluffy,” but the truth is that well-maintained people drive high performance. When you nurture your people, you’re not just managing compliance; you’re crafting a high-performance team that’s resilient, innovative, and ready to overcome challenges. The real strategic advantage of HR being Human Relevant lies in how it grounds the organization in care that produces measurable results.
Human relevance isn’t about pizza parties, service awards, or cookie-cutter evaluations; it's about leveraging hard data from surveys, turnover rates, productivity, and quality metrics to uncover where problems are hidden and where excellence is thriving. It’s about diving deep to understand what drives human performance—or what causes it to slip—and then using that knowledge to take intentional action that elevates both people and performance.
It’s time to move beyond “Hardly Relevant” and embrace an HR model that aligns your people with your company’s true north—because when HR is Human Relevant, the entire organization thrives.