Voices in Leadership • 8 MIN READ
Why I Stopped Calling HR a Support Function
JUN 17, 2026
The language we use to describe HR shapes how the organisation treats it. One CHRO explains why she banned the phrase 'support function' from her vocabulary.
The problem with 'support'
For most of my career I used the phrase 'support function' without thinking about what it implied. Support functions are secondary: they exist to serve the primary functions, the business units that generate revenue. When HR positions itself as a support function, it is essentially agreeing to be subordinate. It should not be surprised, then, when it is the last seat at the table, the first budget to be cut, and the function that other leaders feel comfortable ignoring. The language is not neutral: it shapes expectations, relationships, and power.
What I say instead
I now describe HR as a business function with a specialist domain: people and organisation. Finance is not a support function just because it does not sell the product; it is a business function that manages financial capital. HR manages human capital, which for most organisations is the largest cost and the primary source of competitive advantage. When I started describing my team this way, and backing it up with business-language reporting, the dynamic in leadership conversations shifted. I was no longer asking for permission to do HR things; I was a peer presenting business outcomes.
The shift is harder than it sounds
Changing the language is the easy part. Changing the substance is harder. It requires HR to present in financial and operational terms, not activity terms. Not 'we ran 12 training sessions' but 'time to productivity for new hires improved by 18 days, reducing the opportunity cost of unfilled roles by an estimated £240,000.' It requires building genuine relationships with Finance and the business units so you understand their goals and pressures. And it requires personal credibility: being seen as someone who understands the business, not just the HR policies.
