Such a great truth you're sharing here. That tension between policy and humanity is the true core of our work.
Unfortunately, in my more than 10 years in talent acquisition, I can count on one hand the times a corporate policy actually made me feel "more human."
My most genuine early experience of this was at a California-based boutique recruiting firm called RocketPower. Its founder, Mathew Caldwell, took the time to travel all the way to Argentina just to meet and connect with the local team. There was real culture, care, and vision there. However, after we were acquired by Kelly services, structure ended up devouring empathy: silent layoffs started happening, and I was let go after a year. Some time later, I returned to that same environment because my manager came back to hire me again, but the soul of the place was gone.
That said, exceptions do exist. I've worked across the spectrum, from startups to tech giants and global brands like Google, Randstad, LVMH, and Royal Caribbean. I’m usually the last person to "marry" a corporation, so it feels strange even saying this, but currently working at EY, I genuinely feel taken care of. I have rarely seen a company invest and care so deeply about its people.
It proves a clear lesson that perfectly complements your reflection: people don't always quit bad companies or bad policies; they quit bad bosses, leaders, or founders who choose to hide behind the rules instead of using discernment.
In the end, as you rightly said, a process can be fair, but if it's impersonal, it stops being human. Thank you for opening up such a necessary debate.
This is the "gray" that makes HR or leadership challenging. Deciding to make an exception for a person because it makes sense opens the door to treating exceptions as the norm, and people wonder why they don't get the exceptional treatment. This is why it's easy to just hold the line: "the policy is x." But, that isn't leading in a human-centric way so we need to be able to decide when circumstances warrant a personal vs. policy focus.
“what is good for one should, whenever possible, be good for all. Consistency is one of the ways we create equity” 🖤💜💛
Such a great truth you're sharing here. That tension between policy and humanity is the true core of our work.
Unfortunately, in my more than 10 years in talent acquisition, I can count on one hand the times a corporate policy actually made me feel "more human."
My most genuine early experience of this was at a California-based boutique recruiting firm called RocketPower. Its founder, Mathew Caldwell, took the time to travel all the way to Argentina just to meet and connect with the local team. There was real culture, care, and vision there. However, after we were acquired by Kelly services, structure ended up devouring empathy: silent layoffs started happening, and I was let go after a year. Some time later, I returned to that same environment because my manager came back to hire me again, but the soul of the place was gone.
That said, exceptions do exist. I've worked across the spectrum, from startups to tech giants and global brands like Google, Randstad, LVMH, and Royal Caribbean. I’m usually the last person to "marry" a corporation, so it feels strange even saying this, but currently working at EY, I genuinely feel taken care of. I have rarely seen a company invest and care so deeply about its people.
It proves a clear lesson that perfectly complements your reflection: people don't always quit bad companies or bad policies; they quit bad bosses, leaders, or founders who choose to hide behind the rules instead of using discernment.
In the end, as you rightly said, a process can be fair, but if it's impersonal, it stops being human. Thank you for opening up such a necessary debate.
Kind regards
JP
https://www.instagram.com/elchicodelasentrevistas
Thatinterviewguy
This is the "gray" that makes HR or leadership challenging. Deciding to make an exception for a person because it makes sense opens the door to treating exceptions as the norm, and people wonder why they don't get the exceptional treatment. This is why it's easy to just hold the line: "the policy is x." But, that isn't leading in a human-centric way so we need to be able to decide when circumstances warrant a personal vs. policy focus.