Human resources: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
 
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{A|people|}}{{g}}If a name change is the best way to "reboot the franchise", odds are the basics of the business are suspect. For better or worse, [[sales]] will forever be [[sales]]; [[trading]] resolutely [[trading]], and even dear old [[legal]] will always be [[legal]] <ref>Office of the [[General Counsel]] notwithstanding. </ref>, but the good people of [[personnel]] can't help reinventing themselves. In the heady days before [[investment banking]] become an embarrassing career choice they were “[[human capital management]]”; as the {{t|dogma}} of automation began to bite they became “[[human resources]]”; as that fad, ''inshall'ah'', blew itself out, they rebranded as some kind “directorate of [[talent acquisition]]”.  The most fantastical [[LinkedIn]] job descriptions will be claimed by lifers from [[personnel]].  
{{A|hr|{{image|bb|jpg|}}}}If a name change is the best way to “reboot the franchise,” odds are the basics of the business are suspect. For better or worse, [[sales]] will forever be [[sales]]; [[trading]] resolutely [[trading]], and even dear old [[legal]] will always be [[legal]]<ref>“Office of the [[General Counsel]]” notwithstanding.</ref> — even [[marketing]], of all people, tend to stick with “[[marketing]]” — but the good people of [[personnel]] can’t help re-branding themselves.  


Some have claimed [[human resources]] departments are some kind of [[extended phenotype]] — an adaptation that the rest of us depend upon for our own survival. The better view is that ''we'' are an [[extended phenotype]] of ''theirs'' (in the same way that wheat domesticated homo sapiens and not vice versa).
In the heady days before [[investment banking]] become an embarrassing career choice they were “[[human capital management]]” — we are not so persuaded about the management, but “[[human capital]]” is a useful way of thinking about valuable employees — as the {{t|dogma}} of automation began to bite they became “[[human resources]]”; as that fad, ''inshall’ah'', blew itself out, they reinvented themselves once more as some kind “directorate of [[talent acquisition]]”. Have no doubt, the most fantastical [[LinkedIn]] [[job descriptions]] will be claimed by lifers from [[personnel]].  


In any case, a good portion of the [[Bullshit Jobs: A Theory - Book Review|bullshittery]] and pretty much all of the tedious [[virtue-signalling]] that is now such a feature of modern corporate life can be laid at the security controlled access to the HR department. For they who spend hundreds of thousands on back-to-work schemes for those who took career breaks to have kids were the same who spent the same period systematically making redundant those who decided to stay on.
Some say [[human resources]] departments are some kind of [[extended phenotype]] — an adaptation on the rest of us depend for our continued survival. The better view is that ''we'' are an [[extended phenotype]] of ''theirs'' (in the same way that ''wheat'' domesticated ''homo sapiens''<ref>Insight courtesy of [https://www.ynharari.com/topic/ecology/ Yuval Harari].</ref> and not ''vice versa'').


And who do you think is most (for which read “only”) enthusiastic proponent of the 360° [[performance appraisal]]? It, and the [[diver|dives]] and [[constructive dismissal]] claims it so brazenly solicits, keeps scores of [[HR]] folk employed every year.
And who do you think is most (for which read “only”) enthusiastic proponent of the 360° [[performance appraisal]]?  


As a policy stance, [[HR]] will publicly deny but privately insist upon [[forced ranking]]. It will demand the hardest of disciplinary lines for those poor souls shunted into the bottom bucket — all of this in the interests of fairness and transparency and to minimise claims for [[constructive dismissal]] — but will then decline to permit the consequences (ie firing the poor sod) because of the risk of procedural unfairness in doing so.
===Irresistible object===
Now any multinational organisation will be shot through with pointless, petty and counter-productive [[Policy|policies]]. Well all know that: the [[Jason Fried]]s, [[Ohno sensei|Ohno-sensei]]s and [[W. Edwards Deming]]s of the world have helpfully explained the peril, and folly, of management by policy over decades. But most policies — even those articulating matters of deep religious faith — with enough willpower, a long enough run-up and a good, low, centre of gravity, can be worked around, patched, traversed, traduced, or for practical intents and purposes undermined, for the greater good of the organisation.  


'''Fears''':
This is not true of [[HR]] policies. They are utterly resistant to change.
*[[constructive dismissal]]
{{sa}}
*[[divers]]
*[[System redundancy]]
*[[excuse pre-loader]]s (who are often [[divers]])
*[[Reduction in force]]
 
'''Loves''':
*[[performance appraisal]]
*[[nine-box talent charts]]
{{draft}}
{{egg}}
{{c|Metaphor}}
{{c|Metaphor}}
{{Ref}}

Latest revision as of 08:47, 1 August 2023

The Human Resources military-industrial complex
The instrument (the “telescreen”, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.
Index: Click ᐅ to expand:
HR
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

If a name change is the best way to “reboot the franchise,” odds are the basics of the business are suspect. For better or worse, sales will forever be sales; trading resolutely trading, and even dear old legal will always be legal[1] — even marketing, of all people, tend to stick with “marketing” — but the good people of personnel can’t help re-branding themselves.

In the heady days before investment banking become an embarrassing career choice they were “human capital management” — we are not so persuaded about the management, but “human capital” is a useful way of thinking about valuable employees — as the dogma of automation began to bite they became “human resources”; as that fad, inshall’ah, blew itself out, they reinvented themselves once more as some kind “directorate of talent acquisition”. Have no doubt, the most fantastical LinkedIn job descriptions will be claimed by lifers from personnel.

Some say human resources departments are some kind of extended phenotype — an adaptation on the rest of us depend for our continued survival. The better view is that we are an extended phenotype of theirs (in the same way that wheat domesticated homo sapiens[2] and not vice versa).

And who do you think is most (for which read “only”) enthusiastic proponent of the 360° performance appraisal?

Irresistible object

Now any multinational organisation will be shot through with pointless, petty and counter-productive policies. Well all know that: the Jason Frieds, Ohno-senseis and W. Edwards Demings of the world have helpfully explained the peril, and folly, of management by policy over decades. But most policies — even those articulating matters of deep religious faith — with enough willpower, a long enough run-up and a good, low, centre of gravity, can be worked around, patched, traversed, traduced, or for practical intents and purposes undermined, for the greater good of the organisation.

This is not true of HR policies. They are utterly resistant to change.

See also

References

  1. ↑ “Office of the General Counsel” notwithstanding.
  2. ↑ Insight courtesy of Yuval Harari.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Human_resources&oldid=77187"