‘Remove 90% of HR’: Viral post takes aim at corporate work culture, sparks debate

A strongly worded social media post by workforce strategist Amanda Goodall, known online as @thejobchick, has reignited a heated debate over the role, relevance and perceived power of Human Resources departments in modern organisations.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Goodall launched a blunt critique of HR, claiming the function generates no revenue, weakens morale through excessive policies and primarily exists to protect employers rather than employees. She went further, suggesting that businesses would operate more smoothly, quickly and happily if the bulk of HR roles were removed altogether. The provocation struck a nerve, spreading rapidly across platforms and drawing reactions from employees, managers and HR professionals alike.

The intensity of the response reflects broader workplace anxieties. Over the past few years, HR teams have often been the most visible representatives of difficult corporate decisions. From mass layoffs announced over video calls to stricter return-to-office mandates framed as “culture building,” HR has increasingly been seen as the enforcer of management priorities. For many employees, this has altered the perception of HR from an advocate to an extension of corporate control.

Check out the tweet here:

Goodall’s assertion that HR exists to “protect the company, not you” resonated precisely because of how the function is structured. HR ultimately reports to leadership and is tasked with minimising legal risk, ensuring compliance and maintaining policy consistency. During periods of downsizing or restructuring, that alignment becomes especially clear, reinforcing employee mistrust and frustration.

Another fault line exposed by the debate is measurement. In a corporate environment driven by metrics, revenue and efficiency, HR’s impact is often difficult to quantify. Critics argue that people teams add layers of process, slow decision-making and expand headcount without being held to the same performance standards as revenue-generating functions. As companies tighten budgets, investments made during years of rapid growth — including employee engagement surveys, wellness programmes and expanded people operations — are now being questioned.

A user wrote, “I cant change your mind because I could not agree with you MORE!”

Another user wrote, “HRs purpose is mostly to protect the business, not the individual. Some exceptions but not relevant in the grand scheme. Once you understand that, it makes a lot more sense.”

HR professionals, however, have mounted a strong defence. Many argue that effective HR work is largely invisible: when lawsuits are avoided, compliance failures prevented or toxic managers addressed early, there is no public recognition. They also point out that HR frequently implements decisions taken by boards and senior executives, becoming the public face of actions they did not originate.

“If we played by your rules, those businesses would face hundreds of lawsuits requiring massive litigation that would far exceed the cost of an HR department. My guess is sexual harassment cases would go through the roof,” the third user wrote.

Ultimately, the controversy extends beyond one department.