I agree with all of the things you've just said in principle, but none of them apply in the real world. A company that loudly embraced just one of those bullet points you just gave would top the "best places to work" lists.

The problem isn't top-down corporate strategy; it's the concept of HR departments. When you:

* establish an entire business unit apart from the real work of a company,

* give it a mandate to meddle in the affairs of every other business unit in the company, and then

* measure its performance in raw numbers,

you get the systemic inefficiency almost every large company sees. It's not the people or their ideas that are messed up, it's the system.

However, apart from all that --- if you think what I'm saying is "jaded", try being a vendor to large companies sometime. Prospective employees deal with HR. Vendors deal with Purchasing. At least HR tries to pretend to be nice to you. Purchasing departments (for consultants, or for products) are overtly intended to screw you.

Finally, this isn't about whether you feel like you're being treated fairly. It's about whether you're best representing your interests during negotiation. The idea is not to lose leverage by conceding an advantage in information to your counterparty.

An HR person would be fired if they revealed the salary history of the last 20 people hired into your group in the company. Under no circumstances would a company ever reveal that kind of information. But you concede it willingly. Why?