81,695
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(17 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> —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]]”; 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]]. | |||
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''). | |||
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 the same people who modishly spend hundreds of thousands on back-to-work schemes for those who took career breaks to have kids — many of whom were from the [[HR]] department, naturally — are the same ones who spent the intervening period systematically [[Redundancy|laying off]] swathes of those who decided to stay on and hold the fort. | |||
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]]? It, and the [[diver|dives]] and [[constructive dismissal]] claims it so brazenly solicits, keeps scores of [[HR]] folk employed every year. | ||
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]], you understand — but will then decline to permit the consequences (ie firing the poor sod) because of the risk of procedural unfairness in doing so. | |||
'''Fears''': | '''Fears''': | ||
*[[constructive dismissal]] | *[[constructive dismissal]] | ||
*[[divers]] | *[[divers]] | ||
*[[excuse pre-loader]]s (who are often [[divers]]) | |||
'''Loves''': | '''Loves''': | ||
*[[performance appraisal]] | *[[performance appraisal]] | ||
*[[nine-box talent charts]] | *[[nine-box talent charts]] | ||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||
{{egg}} | {{egg}} | ||
{{c|Metaphor}} | |||
{{Ref}} |