HR departments

[Von]

Put it in there.......Heck she is the one who keeps the file on me!/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gifIn fact I'm taking off early today to go skiing! Plus I just changed my hours to 11-5 wed. -sat. and 1-4 on sun. Closed both mon. + tues. This gives me more time to play around the house and more tractor time!/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[TerryinMD]

Bird,

I hadn't heard of the 85-15 rule... /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif but it's close to the truth.

It's near impossible to get things 100% correct (especially in software development). (I hear the hornets buzzing. /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif) So, if you can hit 80%, you're doing very well. Anything above that is pretty good. Why do you think software products are buggy?

Terry

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>It's near impossible to get things 100% correct (especially in software development).</font color=blue>

I knew that was true for Microsoft; didn't know it applied to other folks, too./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[TerryinMD]

Bird,

Oh.... if you only knew..... you would become very, very concerned! /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

Terry

 

[cp1969]

OK, Bird, I’ll give it a shot by asking you a bunch of questions.

What’s wrong with a system wherein the supervisor knows how to do the employee’s job, and can therefore tell relatively easily whether or not the employee is doing it well? Is this not what every Mom & Pop operation does, with ease? Why is it that this concept doesn’t work at a big company? Why is it that a third party (HR), who does not work with or know what the employee does, must be included as the final arbiter of employee performance? And as far as HR simply receiving and executing ‘marching orders’ from upper management, I don’t believe that. Lower level management is given the task of carrying out the orders; not HR. If it originated with upper management, there would be no need to go through the middle-man of HR before giving it to the grunt level supervisors to execute. I firmly believe that HR people are the ones who come up with these daffy schemes in a feeble effort to justify their own existence, then sell it to upper management . What ELSE do they have to do with their time? They are pure overhead—not under the gun to design, build, fix, buy, or ship anything. Their salaries are paid for with payroll dollars that could otherwise go to the workers who actually earn the company’s living.

As if it isn’t hard enough to do a job today with all the constant do-more-with-less yapping from management, the never-ending mandatory jumping on whatever fad-bandwagon the last flim-flam consultant sold them, to top it off they have to let HR have the final say that you can’t possibly be doing it better than average.

 

[kevincook]

That reminds me of a lecture by the HR folks about how the company doesn't want to be the highest paying business in the area or the lowest paying business in the area, we want to be right in the middle. (visualize the hand gestures)

One of our employees later that day explained that he didn't want to be the best worker in the area or the worst worker in the area. He wanted to be right in the middle. (again, visualize the hand gestures)

I think that is were the term 'World Class Mediocrity' fits into the situation.

Here is another question. Why is it that the Dilbert cartoons are so funny when you read them but when it actually happens to you they aren't funny anymore?

 

[MikePA]

Wow, do I feel lucky! Our HR department just sends out the forms and does the other admin type stuff. I do the review, go over it with the employee, my immediate superior reviews it, almost never changes it, signs it and it's done. The increase amount is based upon where the person is in the salary range for their position. Our VP reads every review and makes sure that there are no 'easy' or 'hard' graders in his area.

 

[Bird]

Charles, maybe our first problem is lumping HR departments together. I guess you know they are different, and have different jobs, in different organizations. I certainly know nothing about the one in your organization, so I certainly cannot argue with you or defend them. And it's been almost 30 years since I was in charge of a Personnel Division. I have a daughter who is the "Senior Benefits Administrator" in the HR department of her company, though.

When I was in charge of the Personnel Division, we were involved (along with others from other divisions) in developing a rating system, but then had nothing to do with the individual ratings, which were done by each employee's immediate supervisor, then approved (or changed, but rarely) by the next two levels in the chain of command. The Personnel Division did the interviewing, testing, and hiring of employees, maintained the personnel records, and helped employees with any questions they had about the benefit package. In my daughter's company, in the private sector, it's the same thing.

So I agree with you about who should do the rating.

But if you don't think the HR people get their marching orders from higher authority, either you're sadly mistaken, or you're in an organization that's different from any I've ever known (and I realize that's entirely possible)./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Justify their existence? Well, if you were in charge of a large organization, wouldn't you want some central record keeping function? In my daughter's case, she negotiates with insurance companies to get the best deal (like health insurance) she can for employees (remember whatever she gets for them is what she gets also). And she did have a tough time this year because, as others have said, insurance premiums went way up and she was expecting employees to be upset (just as she was); but then she got lucky and after her presentation to the top management, they decided to pick up the extra cost without increasing what the employees are paying. She also answers employees' questions in person, via e-mail, and by telephone. She may act as go between or representative for employees with the insurance company if there's a dispute. And then she also plans and produces the Christmas Party, annual company golf tournament, and such things./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Maybe she and I were both just lucky. As least as far as we know, we never had the kind of relationship with the other employees that you have with your HR department./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

 

[RPM]

Bird,

Management speak for the 80/20 rule is the 'Pareto Principle' -- you would be amazed (or maybe not) at the number of studies that back this up!!

Patrick

 

[dummy]

"What’s wrong with a system wherein the supervisor knows how to do the employee’s job, and can therefore tell relatively easily whether or not the employee is doing it well?"

This must be the glitch in your company. As quoted by our HR head, "a good supervisor only needs to know how to manage people, they don't need to know anything about the job at hand." Let the ratings season begin!

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>a good supervisor only needs to know how to manage people, they don't need to know anything about the job at hand</font color=blue>

I think that's taught in nearly every "management" or "supervisory" course in the country. Naturally, there is some truth to it. Unfortunately, I grew up in the times when, if you had a question, you asked the "boss", and that's one of several reasons I retired a bit early. In our organization, you knew you could forget asking the boss, because he (or she) wouldn't know. You either found out yourself or asked someone lower down the chain of command./w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

 

[cp1969]

dummy, I don't know where that notion originated (that supervisors only need to know how to 'manage people', not know what they do), but IMHO it is at the very root of what is wrong with the workplace today.

For starters, what is there to 'managing' people anyway? If you strip away the part of knowing what an employee is supposed to do and how to do it, I have trouble finding what there is left to 'manage'. If you don't know who among your employees can do what, how do you give job assignments? If you can't answer a question regarding the actual work being done, what value are you, as a supervisor, to your employees? I can tell you what value--none whatsoever. The boss/employee relationship has to be a two-way street, and when it becomes one-way, because the boss can only receive from the employees, not give-- there will be no respect given to the boss. When that happens, coupled with the fact that the boss can't tell if you're blowing smoke or telling the truth, you have the recipe for Chapter 11 in front of you.

Now, there may be exceptional cases where a person has such natural leadership qualities that he could lead, at least temporarily, a group of employees while he learned the ropes. But this is in my opinion the exception, not the rule as it has become. Whoever sold American business on the concept that 'you only need to know how to manage people' ought to be given the equivalent of the Billy Sol Estes Award for Grain Management.

Bird, the job your daughter does is termed Benefits Administration here, a separate entity from HR. These people, I agree, are necessary and I intend no disrespect toward them and apologize if I gave that impression. The ones I wholeheartedly intend to disrespect are the ones who come up with idiotic schemes like this ridiculous box and the forced percentages of performance. I wonder what would happen if HR gave the leader of the Blue Angels this form to fill out? I'm sure HR would tell them that there MUST be 10% who are unfit to fly in the Navy.