Dear Uncompliant

Sincerely, Paid & Powerless, and Too Close to the Fire

Once a month, I respond to a real workplace situation submitted by a reader. This month, I am joined by a special guest to provide additional perspective, and we are tackling two questions.

About the Collaborator

Diana is an HR professional with over 15 years of experience helping people navigate workplace challenges. As a neurolinguistic programming (NLP) practitioner, she’s fascinated by how language and mindset shape our professional lives. Diana believes our greatest resource is each other, and that building supportive communities at work isn’t just nice, it’s essential.

You can learn more about Diana here:

→ Language at Work

Question #1

I’ve been working in HR for just over three years, and I’m struggling with the reality that I don’t have the authority to change anything that actually matters.

Whenever I’ve pointed out to my manager that I’m being held accountable for outcomes I can’t meaningfully influence, I’m told I’m being cynical, negative, or difficult. The expectation seems to be to just keep things moving.

I could just keep collecting a paycheque and stop pushing, but at what point does that cross into something unethical? And how do you protect yourself when you’re being held responsible for decisions you don’t have the power to shape?

Sincerely,

Paid & Powerless

Diana’s Response:

I’ve been working in HR for more than 15 years, and I understand your struggle intimately. I’ve felt it many times, seeing decisions unfold that are legally correct but ethically questionable, knowing I’ll be the one delivering news I don’t believe in.

But here’s what concerns me: you’re being told you’re “cynical, negative, or difficult” when you raise legitimate concerns to your manager. That’s not addressing your worries; that’s shutting you down. Combined with being held accountable for outcomes you can’t influence, this creates a troubling pattern.

First, I need to understand: who is holding you accountable? Is it management expecting you to deliver outcomes while blocking your ability to influence them? Or is it colleagues who believe HR has the power to change anything simply because you work in HR? These require different approaches.

If it’s management: Protect yourself immediately. Document everything. Every recommendation that gets overruled, every concern dismissed, every directive you believe will backfire, put it in writing. Simple email confirmations: “Just to confirm our discussion, despite my recommendation of X, we’re proceeding with Y.” Sometimes people reconsider when their decisions are documented. If they don’t, you’ve created a paper trail that shows you raised the red flags.

If it’s colleagues: That’s the curse of HR. No matter how hard you explain that you don’t make these decisions, they won’t believe you because you’re the messenger. You’ll need to develop some emotional armor around that, it comes with the territory.

About ethics: You’re asking the question, which means you haven’t crossed the line yet. As long as you’re advocating for what’s right, documenting concerns, and being transparent about your limitations, you’re acting ethically, even implementing decisions you disagree with. But get clear on your boundaries:

• Implementing decisions I disagree with: part of the job

• Being told I’m the problem for raising concerns: warning sign

• Being blamed for failures I predicted and documented: serious red flag

• Being asked to lie or misrepresent to employees: dealbreaker

The bigger picture: This “powerlessness” is often part of HR work. Corporate was never designed for employees to come first, money is the priority. But not all companies are the same. Some have power dynamics but you occasionally win battles. Others dismiss you constantly and you’re expected to just “keep things moving.”

The critical question is whether your manager acknowledges your worries are valid even when constraints exist, or whether your concerns are simply labeled as problems. From what you’ve described, it sounds like the latter, and that’s unsustainable.

My advice: Give it three months. Document meticulously, raise concerns in writing clearly, and look for any evidence your input matters. If nothing changes and you’re still being dismissed and blamed, start looking for your next role. There are HR positions where ethical concerns are welcomed and where you’ll have more influence. Three years in is enough time to recognize when a specific situation is untenable.

But don’t give up on HR itself. People like you, who feel, care, and ask hard questions about ethics, are exactly who this profession needs. There are moments, even in difficult environments, where we protect a colleague, secure better employee rights, or ensure a fair process. Those wins matter. The work matters. You just need to find a place where your voice is heard, not silenced.

You’re not being difficult, you’re being discerning. Don’t lose that.

Jen’s Response:

Hi! Congrats! You’ve run into a structural reality most HR professionals hit a few years in…right when the job goes from theoretical to practice.

There is a major mismatch in the world of HR between responsibility and authority. Organizations, and (bad) managers, tend to resolve that mismatch by labelling anyone brave enough to name it as cynical or difficult, because it’s a lot easier than changing the system that has enabled the mismatch in the first place.

But, there’s a difference between constraint and complicity. Lacking power isn’t unethical. The ethical line is crossed when organizations knowingly assign accountability to roles without granting the power to influence outcomes, and then expect those roles to present outcomes as neutral or fair.

If you want to protect yourself, I highly recommend documenting. Keep a private record on a personal device of what occurred, who you raised concerns with, how those concerns were received, and what ultimately happened. Document for your sake, for your sanity and, in case things come up down the road, for your protection.

You also need to get strategic about when you push. Not every issue is a hill to die on, and trying to treat them all that way will burn you out fast. What are your hard lines?

You don’t need to push back on everything, but if you’re in a position where it’s safe to do so, you do need to know which values you won’t compromise. I once threatened to leave a company over a termination I fundamentally disagreed with. It was risky, but I could afford that risk at the time. I was financially secure, and the job market looked very different from what it does now.

The point is to be honest with yourself about your leverage, your safety, and your limits. Decide in advance what you will stand firm on, and give yourself permission to let the rest go. Discernment is how you don’t burn out in this field.

Question #2

I’m a people manager, not in HR, but I keep getting pulled into “confidential conversations” where leadership wants my support in handling sensitive issues.

I can see the power dynamics at play, and I’m uncomfortable with it. I worry that pushing back will put me on the wrong side of people who have more influence than I do.

I’m trying to understand what power literacy actually looks like from this position. Is it something you use just to inform your own decisions, or something you’re meant to surface and challenge when you see it happening? How do you decide, especially when you’re close enough to see what’s happening but not protected enough to intervene?

Sincerely,

Too Close to the Fire

Diana’s Response:

I am afraid the position you’re in, close enough to see what’s happening, but not protected enough to safely intervene, is one many people managers face, and it’s rarely discussed openly.

My belief is that power literacy from your position isn’t about always challenging dynamics you see. It’s about making informed choices about when and how to engage. Your fear of retaliation sounds based on what you’ve witnessed, not paranoia. That’s important data.

Before you decide anything, please assess:

What is your actual leverage: Why are you being included? Is leadership genuinely seeking your judgment, or does having a “people manager” involved provide cover for decisions already made? During these meetings, are you being consulted or just informed?

What are the real risks: What have you seen happen to others who pushed back? How secure is your position? Do you have strong performance reviews, relationships with other leaders, or skills that make you valuable enough to protect?

What you’re being asked to support: Are these uncomfortable but legitimate business decisions, or something unethical or illegal? The line between uncomfortable and wrong matters.

Now consider what you’ve already intuited: what is staying silent costing you? You wrote this letter because something doesn’t sit right. That gap between your values and your actions is telling you something important.

I believe that the practical options below will help you understand better the difference between “stay silent” and “challenge leadership directly”:

• Ask clarifying questions in these conversations: “How are we thinking about the impact on the team?” “What protections are in place?” This surfaces concerns while positioning you as helpful.

• Set boundaries on your role: “I’m concerned my involvement might compromise my relationship with my team” or “This might be better handled by HR/Legal.”

• Document everything: Keep detailed records. If things go sideways, documentation is protection.

• Build your exit strategy: Update your resume, strengthen your network, save money. Having options reduces others’ power over you.

• Find allies carefully: Are there other managers who share your concerns? Coalition provides protection that acting alone never will.

The sad truth is that sometimes the system you’re in doesn’t reward speaking up. Sometimes these “confidential conversations” are warning signs of a culture where ethics take a backseat. And sometimes the most power-literate choice is recognizing when you’re in a game whose rules fundamentally conflict with who you are and choosing not to play.

I invite you to ask yourself what do you want this situation to teach you? And who do you want to be when you’re finally far enough from this fire to look back at it?

Jen’s Response:

In your situation, power literacy is first and foremost about seeing things clearly, not acting immediately. It’s important to recognize that power literacy is a private tool you use to make better decisions. Challenging power directly is not a moral requirement, especially when you don’t have the protection to deal with the potential consequences of challenging what you see.

Protect yourself by being intentional about what you agree to support. You can listen without endorsing. You can participate without becoming the messenger or the shield. And you can (and should) document what you’re seeing, including who is framing decisions and what language is being used.

Speak up if you’re confident that you’re safe, but not every moment is the moment. Do you have enough protection to challenge this? Would speaking up change anything, or just expose you? Yes, we need people who are brave enough to challenge the system, but no one is expecting you to be brave all the time. You’re not Batman.

And you’re also not imagining things. The fact that you’re tuned into what’s happening is huge. The work now is deciding how much of yourself you’re willing to put at risk in any given moment.

---

If you have a workplace situation you’d like help thinking through, reply directly to this email or send me a message on Substack. And if you’re interested in offering your professional perspective on a future Dear Uncompliant, feel free to reach out; I’d love to hear from you!