Human resources: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Once known as [[personnel]] then, in the heady days before banking become an embarrassing career choice [[human capital management]], now usually known as [[human resources]], possibly the least resourceful group of humans to ever emerge from the dark ages of free enterprise.  
Once known as [[personnel]] then, in the heady days before banking become an embarrassing career choice [[human capital management]], now usually known as [[human resources]], possibly the least resourceful group of humans to ever emerge from the dark ages of free enterprise.  


There is a view that they are some [[extended phenotype]] of ours, or that we are of theirs, the same way it can be said that wheat domesticated homo sapiens.
They are more than just a parasite, of course. Some have claimed [[human resources]] are some kind of [[extended phenotype]] — an adaptation that we depend upon for our own survival. The better view is that ''we'' are an [[extended phenotype]] of ''theirs'' (in the same way it could be said that wheat domesticated homo sapiens and not vice versa).


It will be [[HR]] which hatches the plan to spend hundreds of thousands promoting a back-to-work scheme for those who took a career break when they had kids, despite having spent the last ten years systematically making redundant those who decided to stay on.
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 spent hundreds of thousands on back-to-work schemes for those who took career breaks to have kids where the same who spent the same period systematically making redundant those who decided to stay on.


They will both publicly deny and privately insist on [[forced ranking]] and will insist on taking a hard line on disciplinary action - in the interests of fairness and transparency - and will then decline to permit the consequences (ie firing the poor sod) because of the risk of procedural unfairness in doing so.
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.


Fears:
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.
 
'''Fears''':
*[[constructive dismissal]]
*[[constructive dismissal]]
*[[divers]]
*[[divers]]
'''Loves''':
*[[performance appraisal]]
*[[nine-box talent charts]]


{{draft}}
{{draft}}
{{egg}}
{{egg}}

Revision as of 15:37, 21 May 2018

Once known as personnel then, in the heady days before banking become an embarrassing career choice human capital management, now usually known as human resources, possibly the least resourceful group of humans to ever emerge from the dark ages of free enterprise.

They are more than just a parasite, of course. Some have claimed human resources are some kind of extended phenotype — an adaptation that we depend upon for our own survival. The better view is that we are an extended phenotype of theirs (in the same way it could be said that wheat domesticated homo sapiens and not vice versa).

In any case, a good portion of the 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 spent hundreds of thousands on back-to-work schemes for those who took career breaks to have kids where the same who spent the same period systematically making redundant those who decided to stay on.

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.

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

Fears:

Loves: