Pros
The annual orientation was genuinely well put together. GIC School deserves credit for running a structured orientation that helped new joiners settle in quickly.
Cons
Having worked with strong HR Business Partners elsewhere, I have fairly high expectations of what the function should deliver. Unfortunately, my experience with Technology HR fell well below that standard. Out of curiosity, 3 of us conducted a simple test. We posed the same intranet-related question separately to Investment HR, Technology HR and GIC School. None of the teams knew us personally, which made the comparison reasonably fair. Investment HR provided the answer together with helpful context. GIC School did the same and even followed up afterwards to ensure the issue had been resolved. Technology HR, however, largely repeated what was already written on the intranet without adding any practical interpretation or guidance. There was no value-add. That experience left me wondering why the quality of HR partnership appears so different across functions and confirms a previous observation on Glassdoor. If other teams are able to provide thoughtful advice while Technology HR struggles to move beyond restating existing documentation, it raises legitimate questions about capability, expectations and leadership. It is also difficult to reconcile the size and seniority of the Technology HR team with the level of support experienced by employees. A function with multiple Vice Presidents should be creating visible value, not leaving staff questioning what that value is. For context, the Technology HR team at my last organisation consists of just two HR Business Partners, yet they consistently provide faster, more thoughtful and commercially relevant guidance to a bigger Technology population. Headcount and seniority are not substitutes for capability. If a much leaner team can deliver a better employee experience, it is reasonable to question whether the current Technology HR structure is fit for purpose.
