SHRM’s Internal Struggles: Laurie Ruettimann Critiques Culture and Values

In a recent LinkedIn post, Laurie Ruettimann discusses the significant internal issues plaguing the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), as highlighted by recent reporting. Ruettimann frames the situation as a stark contrast to the principles SHRM purports to uphold for the broader business community.

A Culture of Fear and Control at SHRM

Ruettimann draws attention to a Business Insider report detailing allegations against SHRM, including a purported “culture of fear,” rigid rules, and a retreat from equity. She emphasizes that these issues are particularly concerning coming from an organization dedicated to teaching best practices in human resources.

“If you work in HR, you’ve probably seen the Business Insider story from Sarah E. Needleman K. and Jack Newsham about SHRM by now. If you haven’t, here’s the short version: the organization that teaches the world how to treat people seems to be struggling to treat its own people well.”

According to Ruettimann, the extensive reporting points to serious organizational dysfunction. She notes that former employees have reported being “punished for asking hard questions,” while current members express confusion and disappointment. Ruettimann highlights the perceived hypocrisy of an organization that advocates for fairness and transparency while allegedly failing to embody these values internally.

The Disconnect Between Stated Values and Actions

A central theme in Ruettimann’s analysis is the chasm between SHRM’s public messaging and its internal operational reality. She argues that SHRM’s mission statement, which often includes ideals like dignity, fairness, and transparency, is undermined by the alleged internal practices.

“We talk about dignity, fairness, transparency, and alignment. We tell leaders to plan ahead and communicate clearly. We promise workers that fear isn’t a management strategy.”

Ruettimann posits that these core HR tenets lose their impact when the leading professional association for HR professionals cannot consistently model them. The situation is further complicated, she notes, by SHRM’s alleged legal arguments that they “shouldn’t be held to a higher standard.” This stance, in Ruettimann’s view, sends a damaging message about the prioritization of business metrics over ethical conduct.

Values as Optional?

Ruettimann concludes her post by reflecting on the apparent message emanating from SHRM’s leadership. She suggests that the organization’s current trajectory prioritizes financial outcomes over its foundational values.

“And the message coming from SHRM right now feels pretty clear. Revenue matters. Profitability matters. Values are optional.”

She encourages her audience to read the source reporting and reflects on the broader implications for the HR profession. The post, while acknowledging the heavy nature of the topic, ends with a sardonic nod to one of the specific criticisms mentioned in the original reporting – rigid dress codes.