The Grand Delusion of “Human Resources”: When “Assets” Are Managed by “Appointed Guardians
The world isn’t merely changing; it’s undergoing a profound metamorphosis. Like a caterpillar’s painful, irreversible transformation into a butterfly, the shifts are undeniable. We’re witnessing the erosion of industrial-era concepts like “office hours,” the migration of workplaces into digital clouds, and the rise of AI CEOs, and so on, and so forth.
Yet, there’s a peculiar corner of the corporate universe where time seems to have stopped somewhere in the 1960s. I’m talking about that department, nestled in the sterile, artificially lit aquariums of corporate plazas, where someone sits with a checklist in hand and a “corporate” mask plastered on their face: Human Resources. Or, as my esteemed professor Levent Erden so aptly puts it, “HRrrgghhh.
Let’s dissect this stomach-churning issue, shall we, through Professor Erden’s famous theory of “disintermediation.” Because what I see before me isn’t a science of management; it’s a farcical Punch and Judy show.
The Drama of HR as a "Proxy"
The defining characteristic of the digital age is the elimination of the middleman. Consumers now connect directly with manufacturers, readers with authors, and voters with their President.
So, what became of that “interface” positioned between the employee and the boss—the one that neither fully represents the employer nor truly advocates for the worker?
There she sits, or he sits, at a desk proudly proclaiming “People & Culture,” but effectively managing “Patron & Ego.” And let’s be honest, it’s usually “she.” This “abla” (a Turkish term for an older sister, used here with a touch of ironic familiarity) is a prototype. Her salary slip likely places her in the same bracket as yours or mine. Perhaps she contributes even less value than you do. Yet, her demeanor suggests she’s the founder’s grandchild, the sole heir to the holding company.
This is morphing into the plaza-branch of “class consciousness deficit” in sociology. Despite being in the same boat (or even the same lifeboat) as you, she mistakes whipping the rowers to curry favor with the captain for “professionalism.” A tragic delusion, indeed.
The "Checklist" Fetish and the Comedy of the Interview
The world is dancing with uncertainty. Just a decade ago, my professor would have called a four-month foresight “science fiction.”
So, what’s our “abla’s” most famous question? Let’s recall: “Where do you see yourself in five years?” These and similar checklist questions are fossils from a pre-Google era. Good heavens, “abla,” do you even know where the world will be in five years, or what the state of your own company will be? How can you demand my coordinates? Even worse are those antiquated rituals like, “Why should we hire you?”—questions that test an applicant’s capacity for fabrication, not their creativity.
And then there are those “deplorable” questions about “your private life, your sexual orientation…”—miles away from assessing competency, hovering ominously between gossipy curiosity and outright fascism.
The problem here isn’t merely a lack of vision; it’s “algorithmic blindness.” Because her checklist dictates “Ask the candidate about their vision,” she attempts to cram a human being’s potential into an Excel cell. This isn’t managing talent; it’s grinding talent to dust
The Economy of Favor and the Faked Smiles
You realize where the “Human” in Human Resources gets lost when you ask for a “day off” or a “perk.”
You’ve worked sleepless nights on a project that’s poised to double the company’s revenue, and you ask for “one day of administrative leave.” Our “abla’s” face sours as if you’ve cursed her ancestors. The mechanism at play isn’t professional rights management; it’s an “economy of favor.” As if she’s granting leave from her father’s private estate!
But this same “abla,” upon spotting the Boss or the General Manager in the hallway, instantly transforms into the world’s most agreeable, most positive person, plastering on a “toothpaste commercial” smile. This “selective permeability” is, in my opinion, a complete erosion of character. No, scratch that – it unequivocally is. This spinal flexibility, being a wall to those below (employees) and a doormat to those above (the boss), has regrettably become a “competency set” for modern HR.
This double standard—bypassing procedures when it suits her, yet blocking your requests with “legal department opinions”—is what truly detonates the company’s sense of justice and their cherished concept of “belonging.” Though, how could they possibly realize it
Conclusion: The Tragic End of the Un-Transformable “Older Sis. HR”
Let me conclude as I began, with Levent Erden: “A caterpillar does not try to be a faster caterpillar; it transforms into a butterfly.”
If today’s Human Resources fails to evolve into “Human Capital,” it will remain relegated to an operational secretariat, merely handling payroll, tracking leave, and “charming” the boss. And I fear 90% of them are condemned to operate at this capacity. I also fear that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will perform those operational tasks far better, far more fairly, and at least without the accompanying “drama” of these “HRrrgghhhs.”
To the “HRrrgghhhs” and their ilk who operate in this manner, I have bad news: that much-relied-upon strategy of “walking arm-in-arm with the boss” won’t save you when the company is forced to “transform.” Because the future will reward not the “obedient,” but those who “challenge and forge new paths.”
So, you can keep asking about “five years from now” with your checklists, and continue to feign corporate gravitas with your jargon-laden communication. Meanwhile, we’ll have already moved on to another galaxy.
No hard feelings.
MEMDUH BOZKURT
