When the Head of HR Becomes Untouchable: How CEO’s Can Regain Accountability and Strengthen the People Function

I. The Untouchable CHRO Problem

I’ve worked with scores of organizations including mid-market companies, nonprofits, healthcare systems, and national associations and I’ve lost count of how many CEOs have quietly admitted that they feel held hostage by their own head of HR.

The conversation usually starts with a sigh: “I know our HR lead isn’t the right fit, but….” Then comes the hesitation: but they been here a long time, and they are part of a protected class, but we’ll get sued if we move too fast.

It’s one of the most paradoxical dynamics in modern leadership. The one executive who should model accountability, fairness, and alignment with company values is often the least accountable member of the team.

Over time, this fear corrodes the CEO’s authority, weakens the leadership team, and quietly drains the organization’s capacity to perform. Yet few CEOs talk about it openly. It’s too sensitive, too politically charged, too legally risky.

The truth is that “untouchable HR leaders” are not rare—they’re common. And the damage they cause is measurable. Organizations cannot thrive when the HR function is dysfunctional, and CEOs cannot lead effectively when they fear their own people officer.

II. Why This Happens: Fear, Risk, and Misplaced Deference

In most cases, the root cause is fear of legal exposure. CEOs and boards have been conditioned to believe that disciplining or terminating a CHRO, particularly one who belongs to a protected class is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

This fear isn’t entirely unfounded, but it is deeply exaggerated. Decades ago, sociologist Lauren Edelman examined how organizations internalize employment law. Her research found that HR and legal professionals consistently inflate the perceived risk of wrongful-discharge litigation, often far beyond reality.¹ She called it the “professional construction of law” a system in which HR and legal fields perpetuate a narrative of constant legal danger, reinforcing their own indispensability.

I’ve seen that dynamic firsthand. HR leaders, often acting from genuine caution, frame every personnel action through a defensive legal lens. Over time, that risk aversion becomes a shield protecting not the organization, but the HR leader themself.

Boards rarely challenge this mindset because HR owns the very policies, language, and processes that define compliance. In effect, the referee controls the rulebook.

III. The Cost of an Ineffective Head of HR

When HR leadership underperforms, the cost isn’t limited to slow hiring or clumsy policies. The entire people system of the organization begins to atrophy.

Peer-reviewed research now shows what many of us have known intuitively: the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) has a measurable impact on company outcomes. Engels and colleagues (2022) analyzed 283 S&P 500 firms and found that CHRO role tenure positively correlates with firm social performance, while excessive company tenure can reduce it.² In other words, CHROs shape the social, ethical, and cultural health of a company and staying too long can make them complacent.

Similarly, Chadwick et al. (2024) discovered that firms where the HR executive’s pay and status are on par with other top leaders tend to perform better financially. ³ When HR is treated as strategic, companies win; when HR is insulated or symbolic, companies stagnate.

That’s the upside of good HR leadership. The downside is darker.

Researchers studying the “dark side of HRM” have documented what happens when HR practices malfunction. Turek (2019) argues that when HR systems prioritize control over care, they can “legitimize and sustain” unethical behavior creating a kind of institutionalized cruelty. ⁴ Neal (2023) found that poor application of HR procedures for instance, mishandled investigations or inconsistent performance processes causes direct harm to employees and measurable damage to culture and reputation. ⁵

Page (2023) went further, exploring how HR professionals can become colluders with toxic leaders, shielding abusers instead of protecting employees. ⁶ These are not theoretical risks; I’ve seen them in action. When the head of HR becomes a gatekeeper instead of a partner, truth stops flowing upward. Staff stop reporting misconduct. Managers stop trusting HR. And the CEO starts hearing only what the HR leader wants them to hear.

Eventually, HR ceases to be a human-capital function at all. It becomes a compliance bunker, defensive, opaque, and self-preserving.

IV. The CEO’s Accountability Gap

Why do CEOs tolerate this?

Partly because the CHRO role has been mythologized as both sacred and mysterious. Few CEOs rise through HR, so they often treat the people function as an opaque specialty they “don’t want to meddle in.” But this difference can border on abdication.

I once worked with a mid-sized behavioral health organization whose CEO confessed, “I’m afraid to even coach my HR director. She’d accuse me of retaliation.” The CEO wasn’t exaggerating, she was genuinely afraid that performance feedback might trigger an HR complaint.

This is managerial entrenchment in its purest form. Research in corporate governance shows that when senior leaders become difficult to remove, firm performance declines. ⁷ Entrenched leaders avoid hard decisions, cling to outdated practices, and seek comfort over accountability.

When the entrenched leader is the CHRO, the problem multiplies. HR controls the documentation, policies, and investigations that determine whether others can be disciplined. An ineffective or self-protective CHRO can quietly neuter the entire accountability system.

V. Shifting the Frame: From Legal Fear to Performance Management

Here’s the hard truth: a weak CHRO is rarely a legal problem, it’s a performance management problem that’s been allowed to masquerade as a legal one.

Research by Autor, Donohue, and Schwab (2007) found that when organizations perceive firing as legally risky, they retain low-performing employees and become less efficient. ⁸ The same principle applies at the executive level. Fear of termination risk leads to avoidance, and avoidance leads to stagnation.

CEOs must reframe this. Managing an underperforming CHRO should follow the same disciplined process as managing any other executive: clear expectations, documented feedback, coaching opportunities, and—if improvement doesn’t occur—a structured transition plan.

Every HR leader understands the mechanics of performance management. The irony is that many weaponize that knowledge when it’s turned toward them. That’s where CEOs must stay grounded in process and principle:

• Document objective performance gaps (e.g., talent pipeline stagnation, unresolved investigations, leadership team mistrust).
• Separate identity from performance: this isn’t about who the CHRO is, but how they lead and what results they deliver.
• Use outside expertise, consultants, employment counsel, or board committees to ensure fairness and compliance. Shameless plug: www.human-capitalllc.com

Handled professionally, this is not retaliation; it’s governance.

VI. What CEOs Should Be Doing

CEOs who want a high-functioning HR leader—and a culture of accountability—must do six things consistently.

1. Set Strategic Expectations

The CHRO’s job is not to “keep HR running.” It’s to drive people strategy that advances the business. Every CEO should articulate exactly how the HR leader’s success will be measured in business terms: talent readiness, leadership bench strength, culture alignment, and risk reduction.

When CEOs fail to define this compact, HR fills the vacuum with process. Process expands; strategy shrinks.

2. Demand Quantifiable Metrics

HR outcomes are measurable. Research from Kaur & Kaur’s meta-analysis (2021) found significant correlations between robust HR practices and financial, market, and operational performance (r ≈ 0.3–0.4).⁹ That’s real leverage.

CEOs should review HR data the way they review financials:

• Leadership pipeline: percent of critical roles with ready successors.
• Talent efficiency: time-to-fill and quality-of-hire metrics for key positions.
• Engagement and retention: turnover among top performers; engagement-to-performance linkage.
• People-risk indicators: unresolved investigations, exit interview themes, audit findings.

If the CHRO can’t produce these metrics, that’s not a data problem, it’s a leadership problem.

3. Build True Partnership

The most effective CEOs treat their CHRO as a trusted strategic advisor, someone empowered to challenge them candidly. Research from the University of South Carolina’s shows that high-performing CHROs are deeply involved in CEO succession, board composition, and leadership team dynamics. ¹⁰

But partnership doesn’t mean blind trust. It means candor. CEOs should ask: Is my HR leader telling me what I need to hear, or what they want me to believe?

4. Establish Governance and Oversight

No other executive function is so central to both compliance and culture—and yet so rarely audited. CEOs should ensure HR is subject to the same scrutiny as finance or operations: independent audits, board-level reporting, and periodic external review of policies, investigations, and compensation systems.

A strong CHRO welcomes this transparency. A defensive one resists it.

5. Introduce 360-Degree Feedback at the Executive Level

One of the most underused tools for CEO oversight is 360-degree feedback, especially for C-suite roles. Properly designed, 360s provide a multi-source view of how a leader is perceived by peers, direct reports, and stakeholders.

SHRM notes that when used with executives, 360° feedback can generate profound leadership improvement.¹⁴ Thach (2002) found that executives who combined 360° feedback with coaching improved their leadership effectiveness by over 60 percent in six months.¹⁵ Atwater (1998) reached similar conclusions: multisource feedback produces real change when followed by developmental action.¹⁶

But the research also warns of pitfalls. Bracken, Dalton & Jako (2016) describe the “devolution” of 360° feedback when it becomes a tick-box exercise disconnected from accountability.¹⁷ Nowack & Mashallo (2014) stress that without coaching and structured follow-up, 360° data alone accomplish little.¹⁸

For CEOs managing a CHRO, a well-constructed 360° process is invaluable. It surfaces perceptions across the organization—trust, fairness, responsiveness—that no performance dashboard will capture. It also breaks the information monopoly HR can hold.

If a CHRO’s 360° results show peers perceive them as obstructive or retaliatory, the CEO now has evidence of systemic issues, not hearsay. Combined with coaching and measurable follow-up, the 360° process becomes a governance instrument, not just a development tool.

6. Plan for Succession

Every executive, including the CHRO, should have a succession plan. This isn’t about disloyalty—it’s about resilience. Having a ready successor prevents the “untouchable” dynamic that arises when a CEO believes “we can’t afford to lose her.”

In my experience, simply introducing the idea of CHRO succession changes the tone. It signals that accountability runs both ways.

VII. The Broader Lesson: Head of HR as a Strategic Lever—or a Strategic Risk

The irony of this whole discussion is that CHROs, when effective, are extraordinary force multipliers.

Engels et al. (2022) demonstrated that CHROs with well-calibrated tenure drive stronger social performance, an increasingly vital predictor of brand strength and stakeholder trust.² Bendig and colleagues (2024) found that firms are more likely to appoint CHROs when environmental uncertainty is high, recognizing that people leadership is a strategic response to volatility.¹¹

But the same structural power that makes HR strategic also makes it dangerous when misused. Research on unethical HRM practices shows that when HR engages in bias, retaliation, or “cosmetic compliance,” it breeds cynicism and erodes the psychological contract between employer and employee.¹²

I once consulted for an organization where HR had become the “department of no.” Every new idea was met with legal jargon, every complaint buried in procedural gray zones. Turnover spiked, engagement plummeted, and the CEO—well-meaning but conflict-averse, couldn’t see that the problem wasn’t the policies; it was the person enforcing them.

Within six months of replacing the CHRO with a transparent process and respectful transition the organization’s culture survey jumped twenty points. The legal department didn’t implode. What changed was leadership posture. HR became a partner again.

VIII. Restoring Accountability to the People Function

CEOs cannot delegate culture. And they cannot abdicate accountability for the one executive who shapes it most.

Holding a CHRO accountable isn’t just about removing a weak leader. It’s about setting a tone: that every function, including HR, is expected to perform, adapt, and lead.

In healthy organizations, the CHRO is a strategic partner who builds trust, champions fairness, and translates business goals into human systems. In unhealthy ones, HR becomes a shield of process and fear.

The difference starts at the top.

I’ve learned that most CEOs already know when their head of HR isn’t working out. What they lack is a framework and the courage to act. The research shows that the risks of not acting are far greater than the perceived risks of doing so.¹³

Ultimately, performance management is an act of respect. It honors the standards we claim to uphold. The head of HR should embody those standards, not be exempt from them.

When CEOs restore accountability to the HR function, something remarkable happens: trust returns. Culture strengthens. Decisions move faster. The organization starts breathing again.

And the CEO, no longer hostage to fear, can finally lead the people function the way it was meant to be led with clarity, confidence, and conviction.

References

1. Edelman, L. B., Abraham, S. E., & Erlanger, H. S. (1992). Professional Construction of Law: The Inflated Threat of Wrongful Discharge. Law & Society Review, 26(1), 47–83.
2. Engels, C., Podsiadlowski, A., & Wegge, J. (2022). The Influence of CHRO Tenure on Firm Social Performance. Int. J. of Human Resource Management.
3. Chadwick, C., Guthrie, J. P., Xing, Y., & Yan, L. (2024). Human Resource Executives’ Relative Pay and Firm Performance. Human Resource Management.
4. Turek, D. (2019). When HRM Practices Malfunction, “Evil Is Born.” Human Resource Management Review.
5. Neal, J. (2023). Poor Application of Human Resources Procedures and Organizational Harm. British J. of Healthcare Management.
6. Page, M. (2023). Conformer or Colluder? The Human Resource Professional’s Contribution to Toxic Leadership. J. of Leadership & Organizational Studies.
7. Antounian, A., Dah, M., & Harakeh, M. (2021). Excessive Managerial Entrenchment, Corporate Governance and Firm Performance. Research in International Business and Finance.
8. Autor, D., Donohue, J., & Schwab, S. (2007). Does Employment Protection Reduce Productivity? Economic Journal, 117(521), F189–F217.
9. Kaur, P., & Kaur, G. (2021). Meta-Analysis of Human Resource Management Practices and Organizational Performance. Global Business Review, 22(4), 1058–1073.
10. HR Moore Center for Executive Succession (2024). Annual CHRO Survey Report. University of South Carolina.
11. Bendig, D., Eckardt, R., & Reiche, B. S. (2024). The Chief Human Resource Officer in the C-Suite: Peer Prevalence and Environmental Uncertainty. Human Resource Management Journal.
12. Simões, C., Rodrigues, R., & Duarte, A. P. (2019). Unethical HRM Practices and Their Impact on Employees. European Management Review.
13. Bird, R., & Knopf, J. (2009). Do Wrongful-Discharge Laws Impair Firm Performance? Journal of Law & Economics, 52(2), 197–222.
14. Society for Human Resource Management (2023). 360-Degree Feedback: A Powerful Leadership Development Tool. SHRM Online.
15. Thach, E. C. (2002). The Impact of Executive Coaching and 360 Feedback on Leadership Effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 205–214.
16. Atwater, L. (1998). 360 Degree Feedback and Leadership Development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
17. Bracken, D. W., Dalton, M. A., & Jako, R. A. (2016). The Evolution and Devolution of 360° Feedback. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 761–794.
18. Nowack, K. M., & Mashallo, A. (2014).