5 ms·

Wow... I'm genuinely shocked at the at the 27 GET IT DONE clicks. I mean this probably worked for that one weekend and until people got their bonus, but I bet y

by k4ch0w 8y ago

Wow... I'm genuinely shocked at the at the 27 GET IT DONE clicks. I mean this probably worked for that one weekend and until people got their bonus, but I bet you the moment the people had their bonus they would leave. It's a good sprint strategy but costs you talent and talent hiring in the long run.

deanalevitt 8y ago
Spot on! How much productivity is lost due to turnover and re-hiring?
- RubenSandwich 8y ago
  “Doesn’t matter those people weren’t committed enough so we’re better off without them.” Yes, some people actually use that justification.
  - Tade0 8y ago
    What worries me is that in some cases it takes years until something makes them see how ridiculous of a conclusion this is. Or even worse: sometimes that doesn't happen at all.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  In many companies, executive management puts more trust in the HR management than other sectors of the org. I speculate it’s for a number of reasons: HR is often the most easily subverted department, needing far less objectivity than departments related to brass tacks product development, IT, customer service, etc. So HR can most easily be a yes-man that executives like to hear from. Also while there certainly are domain-specific properties of HR work that require training and experience, there are also relatively more things handled in HR that are understandable to a layperson with no specialized knowledge in that space, perhaps inviting executives to feel like they are contributing more directly when engaging with HR. Whatever the causes might be, one big effect is that HR usually gets to spin stories about turnover and recruiting to create perceptions such as - nobody could possibly have done anything to prevent a critical employee from leaving - despite some critical person leaving, nobody did anything wrong and if they hired the same person again they should handle everything the same way. - there are just not enough candidates (to disguise the real issue that compensation and benefits are not competitive) - the employee we need has to be open-minded, but we’re only seeing dogmatic people in the pipeline and/or the ubiquitous “not a good culture fit” feedback, to disguise the problem that the company itself is dogmatic and closed-minded, and candidates react to perceived dogmatic culture by turning down interviews or offers. And many more. In other words, HR will spin the situation to say that no productivity is lost to turnover, that nothing could have been done to maintain that productivity, and that whatever happens is never due to misaligned compensation or management failures, it’s just an unchangeable cost of doing business.
  - deanalevitt 8y ago
    I suspect you're right. Sadly.
cyberferret 8y ago
If you look more carefully, the icon actually says "GET SH*T DONE". Somehow a little more apt given the current headlines.
- Crosseye_Jack 8y ago
  "GET SHIT DONE" has been their company mantra for years. They have it on their office walls.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    To be honest the banking industry has a very long history of building superb, over-engineered systems that are meant to sustain a nuclear strike, though in practice are down once a week, delivered 5 years late, and never fit for purpose.

by k4ch0w 8y ago

deanalevitt 8y ago

Spot on! How much productivity is lost due to turnover and re-hiring?

RubenSandwich 8y ago
“Doesn’t matter those people weren’t committed enough so we’re better off without them.” Yes, some people actually use that justification.
- Tade0 8y ago
  What worries me is that in some cases it takes years until something makes them see how ridiculous of a conclusion this is. Or even worse: sometimes that doesn't happen at all.
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
In many companies, executive management puts more trust in the HR management than other sectors of the org. I speculate it’s for a number of reasons: HR is often the most easily subverted department, needing far less objectivity than departments related to brass tacks product development, IT, customer service, etc. So HR can most easily be a yes-man that executives like to hear from. Also while there certainly are domain-specific properties of HR work that require training and experience, there are also relatively more things handled in HR that are understandable to a layperson with no specialized knowledge in that space, perhaps inviting executives to feel like they are contributing more directly when engaging with HR. Whatever the causes might be, one big effect is that HR usually gets to spin stories about turnover and recruiting to create perceptions such as - nobody could possibly have done anything to prevent a critical employee from leaving - despite some critical person leaving, nobody did anything wrong and if they hired the same person again they should handle everything the same way. - there are just not enough candidates (to disguise the real issue that compensation and benefits are not competitive) - the employee we need has to be open-minded, but we’re only seeing dogmatic people in the pipeline and/or the ubiquitous “not a good culture fit” feedback, to disguise the problem that the company itself is dogmatic and closed-minded, and candidates react to perceived dogmatic culture by turning down interviews or offers. And many more. In other words, HR will spin the situation to say that no productivity is lost to turnover, that nothing could have been done to maintain that productivity, and that whatever happens is never due to misaligned compensation or management failures, it’s just an unchangeable cost of doing business.
- deanalevitt 8y ago
  I suspect you're right. Sadly.

cyberferret 8y ago

If you look more carefully, the icon actually says "GET SH*T DONE". Somehow a little more apt given the current headlines.

Crosseye_Jack 8y ago
"GET SHIT DONE" has been their company mantra for years. They have it on their office walls.
- cm2187 8y ago
  To be honest the banking industry has a very long history of building superb, over-engineered systems that are meant to sustain a nuclear strike, though in practice are down once a week, delivered 5 years late, and never fit for purpose.