I worked with great HR people who were trying to systematically identify factors leading to employee frustration, and try to eliminate them. Of course, their motivation still is the (long-term) benefit of the company because frustrated employees are going to leave sooner or later.
However, their efforts mostly led to suggestions that involved structural changes to the company, and were rejected or neglected by management. As a result, the HR people became as frustrated as the other employees, and they left one by one. Eventually, the HR department developed more and more towards one that looked like the one described in the article.
This looks like the "bad" HR pattern emerges inevitably, but given that HR depends on the company management, I would reduce it like this: toxic companies will have toxic HR departments. Maybe the article's metaphor holds in the sense that "nice" security guards also exist in environments where management wants them to be nice.
However, their efforts mostly led to suggestions that involved structural changes to the company, and were rejected or neglected by management. As a result, the HR people became as frustrated as the other employees, and they left one by one. Eventually, the HR department developed more and more towards one that looked like the one described in the article.
This looks like the "bad" HR pattern emerges inevitably, but given that HR depends on the company management, I would reduce it like this: toxic companies will have toxic HR departments. Maybe the article's metaphor holds in the sense that "nice" security guards also exist in environments where management wants them to be nice.
edit: typo