Department of Humanity
We call it Human Resources. Some companies have evolved to People & Culture. But the logic underneath hasn't changed: the department that "takes care of people" reports to the company — not to the people.
What if we took the next step?
The hypothesis
If you place human care outside the organization — external, unbiased, with no conflicting loyalties — people will open up in ways they never would with their boss or an internal HR team. And that openness will change everything downstream: trust, retention, collaboration, health.
The naming evolution
This isn't just a rebrand. It's a paradigm shift.
1.0 — Human Resources
People as resources. To be managed, optimized, utilized. The name says it all.
2.0 — People & Culture
Better language, same structure. Still reports to the business. Still has a conflict of interest built into its DNA.
3.0 — Department of Humanity
External. Independent. On the side of the humans inside the organization. No conflicting loyalties. No performance reviews to file. Just: how are you, really?
Why external?
This is the core insight — and it changes everything.
Internal HR is structurally compromised. It serves the organization first. Employees know this — which is why most people don't tell HR what they're really feeling. They manage up. They filter. They save the real conversation for the friend they call after work.
An external Department of Humanity flips that. It's someone who walks in from outside — with no stake in the company's politics, no role in performance reviews, no reason to filter what they hear or soften what they say.
Think of it as an external Betriebsrat for the soul. Or as a human who listens — but in a professional context, with a structure built around it.
What it does
For individuals
Regular, confidential one-on-ones. Not performance check-ins — human check-ins. How are you? What are you carrying? What do you need that nobody's asking about?
For teams
The breathing room that meetings don't provide. The fifteen minutes of humanity before the sprint. Mediation when things get stuck — not because someone failed, but because humans are complex.
For the organization
An honest mirror from outside. Not a consultant's report — a human reading of how the people inside are actually doing. A early warning system that runs on empathy, not on engagement surveys.
The small company problem
Most small and mid-sized companies — five, fifteen, fifty people — don't have a dedicated HR function. The founder does it. The office manager does it. Nobody does it.
And when the founder is also the person who decides your salary, your role, your future — there is no safe space for honesty. Not because the founder is a bad person. Because the structure doesn't allow it.
An external Department of Humanity gives small companies something they could never build internally: a trusted, neutral, human presence that exists purely for the people inside. Shared across companies. Scaled to what you need. No overhead. No department to build. Just access to someone who is genuinely, structurally on your side.
Open questions
- How does this differ from external coaching, mediation, or EAP programs — and where does it deliberately overlap?
- What's the right commercial model for small companies? Retainer per head? Tiered? Pay-what-you-can?
- How do you formally guarantee confidentiality — and what, if anything, flows back to the organization?
- What kind of person is right for this role? What training, what disposition, what boundaries?
- Could this work for larger organizations too — as a complement to internal HR, not a replacement?
- How do you measure whether it's working? Retention? Satisfaction? Or something we don't have a metric for yet?
Get involved
This experiment needs people who know the system from the inside and feel its limits:
- HR professionals who've felt the structural conflict — and want to explore what's possible outside it
- Founders of small companies who know they're not giving their people what they need — and want to try something different
- Coaches, mediators, facilitators who already do versions of this work and see the gap
- Employees who've wished for someone at work who was truly, unambiguously on their side
- Researchers studying workplace wellbeing, psychological safety, or organizational trust