So a rude reply from a HR (in the making) from a premier college, cements what I said about HR.
This sounds very logical 
It is not possible to satisfy everyone. Different people are motivated by different things. Let's say some people want to work from home, that might increase productivity for a few but bring down the productivity of others.
As I conclude from alagati's post, in such a scenario, HR will make policies from company's view point :cheerio:
This is for the debate of employee advocates Vs realizing the targets set by organizations...
Telling you the way it is, an organization, fortunately or unfortunately, is judged solely by its quaterly performance...if performance is bad, stocks sink and then the organization cannot do salary revisions for its employees...
The bad performance of an organization is somewhat due to the slack nature of its employees (one of the reasons and not the only one...)
As HR, my prime responsibility is to ensure majority of my people are performing as per potential; if that happens then I can confidently work towards resolving their issues as an employee advocate; but if someone does not perform and just cribs and demands (which is a majority of employee, me included in my earlier stint), then HR is a fool is he acts as an employee advocate to such un-productive employees.
Role of HR:
1. Employee advocates to top & loyal performers
2. Design programs to help you average performers reach their potential
3. Get rid of cribbers and non-performers who just add cost to an organization
There is no room for emotions in an HR job; if you want some to soothe your ego, go to a counselor and not an HR
