HR departments

[Knight9]

I'm an independent systems contractor who works primarily on an HR/Payroll software package. I've worked with a lot of HR departments in a lot of companies. Trust me on this one....HR staff members are as ticked off with lame policies, red-tape, and rising HR costs as the rest of the employees are. As Bird pointed out so well, they take their marching orders from above too! One thing I've noticed is a fairly high turnover of staff in HR departments. Folks it is NOT an easy job. Other employees are very quick to point the finger at "HR" which they feel is everyone who works in that department. Do you honestly think that the recruiter in a company is responsible for bringing in a lame staff assessment tool? What about the payroll clerk? The HR Advisor? Not likely.

Kevin

 

[TerryinMD]

Kevin,

Now, we always shoot the messengers - right!! /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

The Dilbert Principle is alive and well. /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif There are wonderful managers out there and they try to do their job well. I have had plenty of them. I have had some TERRIBLE managers also - they are unbearable. Before they hit their hihgest level of incompetence, the staff they manage usually throws up their hands in disgust and votes with their feet.

Sad, sad, sad..... /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

Terry

 

[PitbullMidwest]

An employee that I review has worked here for 20+ years, does an exceptional job at everything he does. His cycle counts for material is always accurate, he helps maintenance strip, clean and repair dies in his spare time, does our forklift instruction and has about a dozen other responsibilities.

When his evaluation comes around I always rate him as "Consistantly Exceeds Standard". After we complete our evalution, HR has to review it (before the employee sees it). Every time the HR Manager reduces it to "Meets Standard". Why? Because he (the employee) set the standard on how the job should be done it is not possible for HIM to consistantly exceed it!

ME: If HR is going to change the review, why waste my time doing it in the first place?
HR: Because its your job to evaluate your employees not ours

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Our program is much more fun. We get to have a 4 - 6 hour interview with our immediate supervisor and a member of the HR department. It's called a CIDS (Chronilogical In-Depth Study). You get to share all of your previous work history from to and including high school right up until the present. You best not try to hide anything because believe me, after about 5 hours your brain starts to go a little mushy. After this little get together, the supervisor and HR person deliberate and after a couple of days come up with a score. The score is based on how well you fulfill the requirements of your specific job. This score then determines whether you are an A, B, or (heaven forbid) a C player. This technique is used to hire new people and to evaluate current staff (I've been here for 11 years - had this done about 6 months ago.) I don't blame HR for this. It's the current executive-level flavor of the month. I take comfort in the fact that this plan will be deep-sixed for the next trend (which usually suggests to do exactly the opposite of the last trend.)

 

[Bird]

Yep, the system is constantly changing. Everyone is hoping to come up with something that really works someday. I've forgotten the author and book name, but one book I read on management said that whether you're hiring, promoting, or evaluating employees, if you're right 50% of the time, you're doing good./w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

 

[TerryinMD]

<font color=blue>.... on management said that whether you're hiring, promoting, or evaluating employees, if you're right 50% of the time, you're doing good</font color=blue>

Now that is one of the most scientific statements I've heard in a long time. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif Geez... they didn't even try to hit the mythical 80-20 rule for approaching nirvana.... /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Terry

 

[beenthere]

Reading this thread after being retired for four years, brings up the ugly memories of working at the same place for 35 years. All the comments I have read are right on the money, as I experienced, on the average, a new rating system about every 5 years. All started out with good intentions - to get the employee to understand what their job was and how they were doing within that job (more or less). All the plans fell apart when the 'bean counters' from HR and up, had to have numbers to look at as that is all they can comprehend (they can't just trust the supervisors to make the decisions directly and confidently between their supervised employees). The numbers had to have a few high (who is in line to promote), most in the middle (comfort zone for managers to feel they are doing a good job), and a few low (need someone to cut if forced into a staff cut). The comments about the HR and up managers changing the ratings brought back that ugly sick feeling in my gut that I haven't experienced in four years.
A good system in my mind was one where HR only knows that the supervisors indeed rated and discussed the rating with their people, but what was said and written down was confidential. If the supervisors' group can't get the job done, then the supervisor gets a poor rating from the next in command.

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>the mythical 80-20 rule</font color=blue>

Is that the same as the 85-15 rule I heard many times? Things like:

15% of your employees cause 85% of the problems and complaints.
15% of the drivers on the road cause 85% of the accidents.
15% of the drivers get 85% of the traffic tickets.

And on and on ad infinitum.

 

[Von]

I just got a peek into my private pesonnel file! Wow what a shock!...It said I was lazy, can't be found when needed and takes off and leaves work when ever he feels like it!/w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif....... Boy its great to be self employed /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif..... Oh. by the way that is what my wife would say some days!!

 

[Devildog]

Von, Are you sure she didnt put that in your file/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif