The Yellowstone Syndrome: What Happens When HR Disappears

Everyone has an opinion about HR.

And honestly, HR departments are not the most beloved function in the business world.

Ask managers, and you'll often hear words like bureaucratic, disconnected from the business, or too focused on process. Ask employees, and some will tell you that HR exists primarily to protect the company rather than support people.

The debate is real.

I recently came across a widely discussed article about Bolt, where the CEO explained why he had decided to eliminate the HR function, arguing that it had become disconnected from the needs of the business. The reactions were fascinating. Some applauded the decision. Others were outraged.

It made me reflect on my own experience after more than thirty years in industry and leadership positions.

From Personnel Administration to Strategic Partner

When I started my career, the function was called Personnel Administration.

You met the Personnel Director when you joined the company and occasionally when administrative matters arose. Training and career development existed, but they occupied a relatively small place in daily business life.

Over the years, HR evolved significantly.

Structured recruitment processes, training programs, performance evaluations, succession planning, career development frameworks and leadership programs became standard in many organizations.

The function became increasingly strategic and much more involved in the day-to-day life of both employees and managers.

This evolution brought real value. Companies became more professional in how they managed people. Career paths became clearer. Development opportunities became more accessible.

More recently, HR has expanded its focus to include organizational culture, employee engagement, diversity, equity and inclusion, and workplace well-being.

These are important topics. They are also complex topics.

I certainly do not have all the answers. What I do know is that some behaviours I witnessed early in my career would be completely unacceptable today, particularly towards women. That progress is a good thing.

At the same time, I am not convinced that culture can be delegated to HR.

Culture is ultimately created by leaders.

Managers set standards. Managers shape behaviours. Managers make decisions every day that define what is acceptable and what is not.

HR can support culture. It cannot replace leadership.

Yellowstone

A few years ago, I watched a documentary about Yellowstone National Park.

By the late 1920s, wolves had largely disappeared from the park. At the time, they were considered harmful predators whose disappearance was seen as a positive development.

Over time, however, elk populations expanded significantly. Young trees along riverbanks were overgrazed. Beaver populations declined as their habitat disappeared. The ecosystem gradually became less balanced.

When wolves were reintroduced in 1995, a remarkable recovery began. Scientists later described this phenomenon as a trophic cascade. Vegetation recovered, beavers returned, and many parts of the ecosystem slowly regained their balance.

The story became famous because it demonstrated how interconnected complex systems can be.

Organizations are not ecosystems, and HR professionals are certainly not wolves.

Yet the analogy remains interesting.

Remove a well-functioning HR function, and the consequences are rarely immediate. But over time, symptoms begin to appear: inconsistent hiring practices, arbitrary compensation decisions, unresolved conflicts, and a gradual erosion of trust and culture.

I've witnessed this firsthand.

In one organization, a decision had been made to manage the HR function remotely while relying locally on a small administrative team whose original role was mainly payroll and personnel administration.

These individuals were dedicated and eager to grow professionally, but they were suddenly expected to perform a completely different job. Without the necessary training, experience or support, they were asked to handle recruitment, compensation, employee relations, organizational design and other sensitive people matters.

The challenge was not their motivation or commitment. In fact, many genuinely saw it as an opportunity to develop their careers.

But HR is a profession in its own right. Wanting to do the job is not enough if the required expertise is missing. Just as we would not expect a technician to become an engineer overnight, we should not expect administrative personnel to suddenly become strategic HR professionals without proper investment in their development.

The results were predictable.

Decisions became inconsistent. Personal relationships sometimes carried more weight than established principles. Managers lost confidence in the process. Employees questioned fairness. What should have been a stabilizing function became a source of friction.

Over the years, I came to think of this as a corporate version of the Yellowstone Syndrome: remove a critical capability from a system, and the consequences may take years to become visible, but they eventually affect everything around it.

HR is certainly not a nuisance. Organizations need HR, but they need qualified HR professionals. Simply giving someone the title without providing the expertise, experience and support that the role requires is not enough. The consequences may not be immediate, but over time they inevitably affect the entire organization.

A Question of Quality

Like any profession, the quality of HR professionals varies considerably.

During my career, I have worked with outstanding HR leaders who became trusted partners to both employees and management. They understood the business, challenged leaders when necessary and helped organizations grow.

I have also encountered situations where processes became more important than outcomes, or where complexity replaced common sense.

What made the difference was rarely the process itself.

It was the quality of the individuals behind it and the trust they were able to build with the business.

Conclusion

HR is neither the solution to every organizational problem nor the source of every organizational frustration.

When it works well, it supports people throughout their careers, helps companies scale effectively and becomes a genuine strategic partner to leadership.

When it works poorly, it often reflects deeper issues within the organization itself.

Perhaps the real question is not whether HR has too much influence or too little.

Perhaps the question is whether we have invested enough in building the right HR function with the right people.

Because ultimately, HR is the mirror of the company that employs it.

The reflection is ours.