A blunt tweet by workforce strategist Amanda Goodall, better known online as @thejobchick, has ignited a fresh firestorm in corporate America’s long-running love–hate relationship with Human Resources. She argued that the function produces no revenue, drains morale through excessive policies, protects companies over employees and yet remains omnipresent in decision-making.Her conclusion was incendiary: remove 90% of HR tomorrow and businesses would run “smoother, faster and happier.” Taking to her X (formerly Twitter) handle, Goodall wrote, “HR is the only department that gets a free pass for being completely useless. They produce zero revenue, kill morale with endless policies, protect the company NOT you, and somehow still get invited to every meeting like they’re essential. Remove 90% of HR tomorrow and the business would run smoother, faster, and happier. Change my mind (sic).”Within hours, the post went viral, resonating across X, LinkedIn and executive Slack channels, where layoffs, burnout and distrust of corporate leadership remain raw after years of restructuring. The timing mattered. Coming off a year defined by mass layoffs, AI-driven efficiency pushes and a widening trust gap between leadership and workers, Goodall’s tweet crystallised a feeling many employees already harboured but rarely articulated so bluntly.
Why the anti-HR sentiment is surging now
The anger directed at HR did not emerge in a vacuum. Over the past few years, HR departments have often been the public face of unpopular corporate decisions: redundancies delivered over Zoom, return-to-office mandates framed as “culture” and compliance-heavy policies introduced in the name of risk management. For many workers, HR has become synonymous not with support but with corporate self-protection.Goodall’s claim that HR “protects the company, not you” struck a nerve precisely because it reflects how the function is structurally designed. HR reports to leadership, not employees. Its mandate is legal risk mitigation, consistency and policy enforcement, not advocacy. During downturns, that reality becomes painfully visible, reinforcing the perception that HR exists to soften bad news rather than prevent it.
Revenue versus relevance: The core accusation
At the heart of the backlash is the question of value. In an era obsessed with measurable outputs, HR’s contributions are harder to quantify than sales figures or product launches. Critics argue that HR expands headcount, introduces bureaucracy and slows decision-making, all while avoiding direct accountability for business performance. This is where Goodall’s “remove 90%” argument gained traction. Many leaders privately admit that bloated HR structures emerged during years of cheap capital and rapid hiring, when companies invested heavily in policy frameworks, engagement surveys and corporate wellness initiatives. As margins tighten, these layers now feel expendable.
The counterargument HR defenders are making
HR professionals were quick to push back, arguing that their work becomes invisible precisely when it is effective. They point out that compliance failures, discrimination lawsuits, toxic managers and chaotic hiring processes cost companies far more than HR budgets ever do. Without HR, they argue, organisations risk legal exposure, inconsistent people management and cultural drift.There is also a quieter truth beneath the outrage: HR is often tasked with executing decisions it did not make. Layoffs, pay freezes and restructures originate at the executive or board level, yet HR becomes the messenger and therefore the villain.
A proxy war over power, trust and control
What makes this debate so combustible is that it is not really about HR alone. It is a proxy war over who holds power in modern workplaces. Employees feel disempowered and disposable. Executives feel pressure to deliver efficiency at all costs. HR sits uncomfortably in the middle, translating corporate priorities into human consequences.
Netizens react to Amanda Goodall’s tweet
Goodall’s tweet resonated because it voiced a broader frustration with corporate language that prioritises “alignment” and “policy” over empathy and agency. For critics, HR has become the embodiment of that disconnect.
Is HR facing a reckoning or a reinvention?
Rather than signalling the death of HR, the viral backlash may point to its next evolution. Companies are already experimenting with leaner people teams, embedding HR partners directly into business units or splitting compliance from employee advocacy roles. The future of HR, if it survives, may be smaller, more specialised and more accountable.Goodall’s challenge, “change my mind”, captures the moment perfectly. HR is no longer automatically trusted, respected or immune from scrutiny. In a post-layoff, AI-accelerated corporate world, every function is being asked to justify its existence. Whether HR can do that may determine not just its own future but how humane or transactional work becomes in the years ahead.
About the Author
