Last week Business Insider ran a hit piece on SHRM, and they got it all wrong. The reaction to SHRM says more about the state of HR than anything SHRM actually did. People are outraged, stunned, and disappointed, and that response exposes tension that has been building for years. SHRM is changing the way it operates, and a lot of people do not like it. Many still expect HR to function like it did a decade ago, when culture meant comfort and conflict avoidance counted as leadership.
If you have read the article, just know they missed the point completely. The story frames SHRM as hypocritical and harsh, but that framing rests on an outdated belief about what HR is supposed to be. HR today is asked to drive performance, protect margins, accelerate strategy, and build aligned systems inside environments that shift week to week. That requires clarity, enforcement, and leadership, not emotional management.
Look closely at the complaints. People are upset about punctuality expectations even though there was a full hour to arrive. They are upset about dress codes, reorganizations, and a CEO pushing for higher accountability. None of these things qualify as ethical violations. They are decisions made inside a competitive landscape where expectations rise because the stakes rise. Yet the response has been emotional, as if discomfort alone should count as misconduct. It should not.
SHRM is clear about how they see themselves, and their own statement reflects that clarity. They say they stand proud of their business, their people, and the culture they have built. They say they will not allow selective narratives to distort the reality of who they are. They describe their commitment to an inclusive and respectful environment as unwavering. They remind the public that a handful of disgruntled former employees do not represent the experience of the hundreds who thrive across global offices. And they point out that the Business Insider article cherry picked anecdotes and ignored the core of their organization. They see a company where teams collaborate, colleagues support each other, and employees rally around a mission that is bigger than any one individual. They are not apologizing for holding a high bar. They are not apologizing for protecting their standards. They are operating with conviction.
That is the part getting lost. SHRM is growing. They are influencing national policy. They are expanding membership and shaping the agenda for HR at a moment when clarity is rewarded and hesitation is punished. When expectations increase friction will always follow. That friction does not equal cruelty. It does not equal abuse. It often means a shift in identity. It often means some people were used to seeing HR as a shield instead of a strategic engine.
The HR community has been split for years. One group still holds onto the comforting version of HR that prioritizes harmony above progress. The other understands that HR now sits at the center of business outcomes. SHRM is aligned with that second model. They are repositioning HR to operate at the speed of business. That kind of evolution always triggers backlash. The louder the resistance, the clearer the shift.
The real concern is not what SHRM is doing. The concern is the impossible expectations placed on HR as a function. HR is being asked to transform organizations, protect people, guard the brand, interpret data, redesign workflows, deliver speed, and soften every impact for the workforce. No function can do all of that while also serving as the emotional cushion for every uncomfortable moment. The environment is too volatile and the responsibilities are too contradictory.
This criticism is not about misconduct. It is about discomfort. Discomfort with higher standards. Discomfort with organizational pace. Discomfort with a people function that is finally operating like a strategic engine. The irony is that HR has been telling leaders for years to drive accountability and lead through clarity. SHRM is doing exactly that. Now that HR itself is living those expectations, people do not like how it feels.
Adaptation rarely feels good. It often feels unfair at first. But progress does not begin in comfort. SHRM is not abandoning HR principles. They are applying them with urgency.
The future of HR will look more like this moment than the nostalgic version many hope will return. Not because empathy is going away, but because clarity generates more trust than comfort ever has. While empathy still matters, accountability matters more. HR cannot lead transformation while clinging to emotional norms designed for a slower era of work.
SHRM is not the villain in this story. SHRM is the mirror. And right now a lot of people do not like their reflection.
Elsewhere In Culture
Americans keep hearing that inflation has cooled and incomes are rising, yet frustration is deepening because the math of daily life no longer works. Michael Green argues that our official poverty line is a relic from the 1960s, built on the assumption that food is the primary household expense. Today food makes up a small sliver of a family budget, while housing, health care, childcare, education, and transportation have taken over the balance. When those categories are updated to reflect modern costs, the real threshold for basic stability climbs to roughly one hundred and forty thousand dollars. This explains why families earning six figures feel stretched thin and why the older poverty line feels like a measurement of starvation rather than a measure of societal well-being.
Green’s second point cuts even deeper. He describes a Valley of Death where families trying to climb from forty thousand to one hundred thousand lose benefits faster than their wages rise. Support disappears just as expenses skyrocket, which means the system cushions people at the very bottom but punishes anyone who attempts to move upward. The resentment playing out in politics is less about hostility toward the poor and more about anger at a government structure that makes working harder feel like a penalty. Families are not frustrated because they lack empathy. They are frustrated because they feel abandoned in the middle, trapped between incomes too high for help and too low for stability.
If you think 140,000 dollars being the new poverty line sounds crazy, you are not alone, although Cowen argues the conversation requires far more nuance than a single viral headline can hold.
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-myth-of-the-140000-poverty-line
Cowen believes the figure caught fire because it reflects how heavy life feels for many families, yet he reminds readers that the poverty measure used today already adjusts for a broad mix of expenses rather than the outdated food formula people repeat online. When researchers look at what families can actually buy instead of the fluctuations in their income, they see a long decline in poverty alongside steady gains in living standards. Homes are larger, healthcare is more advanced, and essential services have expanded in ways earlier generations never experienced. Families still feel squeezed, but the squeeze is happening in a country that is progressing and straining at the same time, which makes the affordability conversation far more layered than a single number can capture.
He also pushes back on the foundation of the 140,000 dollar claim, since it is drawn from one suburb, one family structure, and one narrow stage of life when costs peak. When he widens the frame to include two-earner incomes, regional differences, and long-term patterns in spending and demand, the picture shifts. High prices often reflect the sheer number of people who can afford to participate in the economy rather than evidence that the middle class is collapsing. In his view, the real challenge lives in policy. Housing, childcare, and healthcare are shaped by systems that have not kept up with how people live and work today. The strain families feel is real, but calling 140,000 dollars the new poverty line pulls attention away from the structural issues leaders actually need to confront. only read as strength when they’re part of a compelling story. Without that, they’re just a warning sign.
Most leaders will enter 2026 reacting. I do not want to react. I want to see what is coming before it arrives. That is why we are bringing leaders together for the Surrender To Lead Summit on January 13.
You will hear from executives who are already shaping the year ahead and you will see how the themes from our upcoming book Surrender To Lead come to life in real decisions and real results.
If you want clarity going into 2026, register now and be in the room where leaders are already looking forward.
Register Now At https://www.surrendertolead.com/summit/