Why I Chose to Support Leaders Differently From HR

Early in my career, I believed HR was the place where I could help create a more meaningful and supportive experience for employees.

That belief is what drew me to Industrial-Organizational Psychology—and ultimately into HR.

But over time, I began to see a tension I hadn’t anticipated.

One of the first moments this became clear was when my department—training and development—was restructured. All roles were eliminated, and we were asked to find new positions, either within the function or elsewhere in the organization.

At the time, I had shaped my role into something meaningful. I had invested in it, built it out, and felt a strong sense of ownership and accomplishment.

So when that decision was made, it felt like the ground shifted beneath me.

Up until that point, I had believed I was a valued part of the organization. But in that moment, I began to understand something different—something I hadn’t fully seen before.

The priorities of the organization did not always align with the experience of the individual.

When HR Becomes Identity

Recently, I came across an article titled “Is HR really there to help employees?” that articulated something many professionals come to understand through experience.

The article makes a critical distinction: HR is not primarily structured to advocate for individual employees—it is designed to manage organizational risk.

That distinction is important. But what often goes unspoken is how deeply people come to tie their identity to the roles they hold within that system.

Early in our careers, our work becomes more than just what we do. It becomes how we measure our value. Our role reflects our contribution, our progress, and in many ways, our sense of self.

Over time, it can become difficult to separate who we are from the work we’ve built.

And when that role shifts—whether through restructuring, leadership changes, or organizational decisions—it doesn’t just feel like a professional disruption.

It can feel personal.

I’ve seen this most clearly in leaders who have invested deeply in their work—who have shaped their roles, built teams, and created meaningful impact over time.

When something changes outside of their control, they’re left not only navigating the practical implications, but also questioning their place, their value, and their direction.

Because when identity becomes too closely tied to role, even necessary organizational decisions can feel like a loss of something much deeper.

The Structural Reality of HR

This isn’t a criticism of the individuals who work in HR.

Many are thoughtful, well-intentioned professionals who genuinely care about fairness and the employee experience.

But structurally, HR sits within the organization—and its responsibility is to protect that system.

At its core, HR is accountable for managing organizational risk. That includes ensuring compliance, supporting business operations, and navigating issues in a way that protects the organization legally, financially, and reputationally.

Over time, I began to understand that decisions were not made solely through the lens of individual impact, but through a broader organizational perspective.

And while that may seem obvious in hindsight, it was surprising to experience it firsthand.

Because when the needs of the organization and the needs of the individual diverge, the organization will typically come first.

Not because individuals don’t matter—but because that is how the system is designed to function.

Where the Tension Emerges

This realization began to shift how I understood my role.

I had entered the field wanting to support employees directly—to help create work experiences that were meaningful, sustainable, and aligned.

But over time, I found myself in moments where that intention didn’t fully align with how decisions were being made.

There were situations where I could see the impact on individuals clearly—where something felt off, or unresolved, or misaligned with what I believed good leadership and support should look like.

And yet, the path forward was shaped by broader organizational considerations.

That’s where the tension emerged.

Not in a single moment, but gradually—through experiences that left me thinking:

This isn’t what I thought this work would be.

It wasn’t that the work lacked purpose. But it became clear that within the structure of HR, supporting individuals fully was not always the primary objective.

And that realization began to change how I saw my role—and where I could have the greatest impact.

Why I Chose to Support Leaders Differently

This realization shifted how I understood my role.

I had entered the field wanting to support employees directly—to help create work experiences that were meaningful, sustainable, and aligned.

But within HR, that work is often constrained by organizational priorities.

Over time, I began to recognize that the kind of support I was drawn to offer—support rooted in clarity, alignment, and long-term growth—required a different context.

One where the focus could remain on the individual, not just their performance within a system.

That shift led me to coaching.

Today, my work centers on supporting women leaders as they navigate their own growth and transitions—not simply to meet the needs of the organization, but to reconnect with their own sense of direction, identity, and purpose.

Because leadership development, at its best, isn’t only about how someone performs.

It’s about how they align who they are with how they lead.

 

 


 

 

Because leadership development shouldn’t only serve the system.

It should also serve the person.

For many leaders, there comes a moment—sometimes subtle, sometimes unmistakable—when something no longer feels fully aligned.

Not because they’ve failed, but because they’ve outgrown the way they’ve been operating within the system.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 thoughts on “Why I Chose to Support Leaders Differently from HR”

Scroll to Top