Human resources: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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''). | 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]]? | 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, you understand — but will then decline to permit the consequences (i.e. 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 | |||
'''Fears''': | '''Fears''': | ||
Revision as of 16:55, 13 November 2020
|
People Anatomy™
A spotter’s guide to the men and women of finance.
|
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”; 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? 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 (i.e. firing the poor sod) because of the risk of procedural unfairness in doing so.
Fears:
- constructive dismissal
- divers
- excuse pre-loaders (who are often divers)
Loves:
References
- ↑ “Office of the General Counsel” notwithstanding.
- ↑ Insight courtesy of Yuval Harari.