Human resources: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
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]]? 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.
And who do you think is most (for which read “only”) enthusiastic proponent of the 360° [[performance appraisal]]?  
 
'''Fears''':
*[[constructive dismissal]]
*[[divers]]
*[[excuse pre-loader]]s (who are often [[divers]])
 
'''Loves''':
*[[performance appraisal]]
*[[nine-box talent charts]]
{{draft}}
{{egg}}
{{c|Metaphor}}
{{c|Metaphor}}
{{Ref}}
{{Ref}}

Navigation menu