HR Management: Is it better to be an authoritarian?

Of the two choices, "authoritarian" and "buddy," "authoritarian" is probably the better choice. Compare this to "parent" and "pal"--someone's job is to be the grownup and if you are a parent and abdicate this responsibility, the results are disastrous.

Those are not the only two choices, however, for someone in an HR role. In the HR role, it is your job to make sure that the company policies, procedures, rules, etc. are followed by the employees. You, of course, are an "employee" yourself in that role. Are the company's policies, procedures, rules, etc. clear and enforced even-handedly and consistently? Are they well documented? Is there a "new hire" program that makes them clear to employees and prospective employees?

I'm not an HR person--but your question makes me wonder whether you are comfortable with your company's policies, procedures, rules, etc. If you are not, then either you need to be the advocate for change and you need to negotiate with upper management/owners of the company for that/those changes or you should look for a new job yourself.

Decent companies to work for have clear and understandable rules that are enforced even-handedly. The pay scales are adhered to without discrimination. None of them require employees to do anything "illegal" and all conform to basic ethics. All decent companies are law-abiding when it comes to HR issues. Do you work for a "decent" company? If not, leave. Don't look back.

If the company is decent and law abiding, then employees don't need HR to be a "buddy"--they need it to be a "parent" in providing firm guidance and even-handed discipline. None of this should be a surprise. For example, suppose there is an issue with attendance (habitual tardiness, excessive absences, etc.) The bottom line is that the company needs to be able to "count on" its employees, just as the employees "count on" the paycheck they get at the end of the week.

You might have some leeway if the nature of the work were such that you could work out a "flex time" agreement of some sort that would solve the problem for both the company and the employee--but sometimes that is just not possible. If the issue were due to illness (or a child's illness, etc.) again, there are work-arounds (and there are also laws--family leave, etc.). Realize that "identical" rules are not necessarily "fair" nor are they percieved as such by other employees. If someone has child-care issues, for example, that make them habitually late, this is not "fair" to the employees who show up on time. A "flex time" agreement would be "fair" only if it were also available to other employees with similar problems. If you bend over backwards to work something out for someone who needs "special arrangements" because of some serious problem like chemotherapy, the other employees are not going to perceive the "special arrangements" as "unfair"--unless, of course, the company makes them for one employee and not for another in the same/similar situation.

It is not your job to be an "advocate" for your company's employees--your role is as an "avocate" for the company's well-being. The smaller the company, perhaps, the more obvious this is. The bottom line is that if the company does not run smoothly, does not earn a profit, etc. then those employees won't have the very thing that all of them are there for--a dependable paycheck. You are sort of a liaison, a "translator" of sorts. Your job is to make sure that the policies, procedures, rules, etc. are clear, that they are understood by all, and that they are adhered to. Your "advocate" role is perhaps in communicating the need for changes to those in response to changing conditions--but ultimately, you work for the company.