Should HR be Part of the Internal Committee?

Should HR be Part of the Internal Committee? Let’s Dive Into This Hot Potato!

In my recent POSH Investigator Workshop in Gurgaon, I was confronted with a familiar, yet perplexing question: Should HR be part of the Internal Committee (IC)? This question is like a boomerang—it keeps coming back! It seems like it’s high time we address it on a broader platform.

Why Does This Question Keep Popping Up?

First, let’s dig into why this question keeps rearing its head. Is there a hidden discomfort lurking beneath the surface? Are employees and HR professionals tiptoeing around something? The POSH Act doesn’t give a clear-cut answer. It specifies the number and skill sets of IC members but doesn’t explicitly say, “Thou shalt include HR” or “Thou shalt not include HR.” So, on technical grounds, we could say, “Sure, why not!” But at NoMeansNo, we focus on practical implementation over just flipping through rulebooks. Let’s break this down and see what the fuss is all about.

Conflict of Interest: Wearing Too Many Hats

Picture this: You’re an employee with a tricky situation on your hands. Who do you turn to? Local HR, of course! But wait, what if your trusted HR person is also on the IC? Would you spill the beans as freely? It’s like asking a referee who’s also playing on one of the teams. This dual role can make things messy. The HR member knows about the issue even before it officially becomes a complaint. It’s like trying to keep a secret in a fishbowl.

Access to Records: The All-Seeing Eye

Now, let’s talk about HR’s access to records. Imagine HR as the all-seeing eye of Sauron (okay, maybe not that dramatic, but you get the idea). They have access to your entire work history. Do you think it’s fair for someone with all this info to be part of an investigation? There’s potential for biases—conscious or unconscious—to creep in. And that’s not what you want in a fair investigation, right?

Reporting Deterrents: The Elephant in the Room

Would you report harassment if you thought the IC wasn’t as neutral? The IC is supposed to be this independent, quasi-judicial superhero team. But if HR is part of it, employees might think twice. They might feel like HR is wearing a cape that’s more about saving the company than protecting them. Imagine reporting an incident and wondering if it’s like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.  (This is purely basis the general perception)

Implementation of Recommendations: Judge, Jury, and Executor?

Let’s not forget, once the IC wraps up its investigation and hands over the report, guess who’s in charge of implementing the recommendations? Yup, HR again. This is like asking your dentist to also be your dietitian and fitness coach. It’s another layer of potential conflict of interest. Can the same person investigating a complaint also be seen as neutral to execute the outcome impartially?

The Broader Picture: To HR or Not to HR?

So, should HR be part of the Internal Committee? Our recommendation is to steer clear of this arrangement if possible. However, we get it—sometimes organizational structures and staffing realities make it unavoidable. This doesn’t mean your committee is invalid, but it does mean you need to be extra vigilant about maintaining its integrity and neutrality.

What’s Your Take?

So, here we are. Should HR be part of the Internal Committee? It’s not a one-size-fits-all answer. We need to weigh the potential conflicts, biases, and perceptions of neutrality. What do you think? Have you seen HR being part of the IC work well, or has it caused more headaches than it’s worth? Share your experiences, and let’s keep this conversation going. After all, creating a safer, more supportive workplace is a team effort.