4 ms·

This is a stereotype of HR that IMHO is not representative of the majority of people in the profession.

by eli 7y ago

duxup 7y ago
The majority of people in the profession don't change the incentives. They work for the company, push comes to shove that is their job. They might help me figure out some insurance thing here or there and really care, but when it comes to something important they are there for the company, not me.
- eli 7y ago
  Doesn't everyone at the company... work for the company? An Engineering Manager has an incentive to overwork engineers to a hit a deadline -- and, yes, sometimes that happens! -- but in addition to just being a bad thing to do, that comes at a huge long term cost to the business. It's much better for the company and the employees to not overwork them. If HR is doing it right, supporting the company and supporting its employees are compatible goals.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    > supporting the company and supporting its employees are compatible goals. Until an employee does something that puts themselves at odds with the company. At which point HR is the tip of the spear when it comes to protecting the company from that employee. "Here's how to let them go legally." "Here's how we bribe them into not talking bad about us." "Here's our zero tolerance policy we can fit our employee firing into."
mdorazio 7y ago
People =/= department. That goes for many things beyond HR as well, but in general you'll often find good HR people with good intentions who nonetheless end up doing shitty things to employees when it's a choice between being nice and protecting the company.
jimmydddd 7y ago
Could you please clarify? My understanding is that HR's job is to protect the company, not the employee. If the employee is "helped," it's typically to shield the company from lawsuits. So, acting in the employee's best interest is often aligned with helping the company. But, if the employee's interest is seen as diverging from that of the company, HR will "side" with the company against the employee. Do you disagree?
- michaelt 7y ago
  Let's say there are several independent reports of an important, senior manager sexually assaulting employees, and the HR manager wants to cover it up. They only need a one or two people able and willing to deliver a cover-up, not the entire department. It could well be 95% of people in the profession would categorically refuse if asked to do so.
luckydata 7y ago
In my experience the stereotype is well deserved. I have in the past reported impropriety during a company conference, and specified I was doing it to make sure people were advised to knock it off and avoid getting ourselves a Uber style scandal, I was put on probation right away (the CTO was involved) and I had to leave the company right after that. It wasn't worth to sue them and frankly the job sucked, but that taught me the valuable lesson that even if you're looking out for the business, HR is still not your ally. HR serves executives and nobody else.

This is a stereotype of HR that IMHO is not representative of the majority of people in the profession.

by eli 7y ago

This is a stereotype of HR that IMHO is not representative of the majority of people in the profession.

The majority of people in the profession don't change the incentives. They work for the company, push comes to shove that is their job. They might help me figure out some insurance thing here or there and really care, but when it comes to something important they are there for the company, not me.

eli 7y ago
Doesn't everyone at the company... work for the company? An Engineering Manager has an incentive to overwork engineers to a hit a deadline -- and, yes, sometimes that happens! -- but in addition to just being a bad thing to do, that comes at a huge long term cost to the business. It's much better for the company and the employees to not overwork them. If HR is doing it right, supporting the company and supporting its employees are compatible goals.
- falcolas 7y ago
  > supporting the company and supporting its employees are compatible goals. Until an employee does something that puts themselves at odds with the company. At which point HR is the tip of the spear when it comes to protecting the company from that employee. "Here's how to let them go legally." "Here's how we bribe them into not talking bad about us." "Here's our zero tolerance policy we can fit our employee firing into."

mdorazio 7y ago

People =/= department. That goes for many things beyond HR as well, but in general you'll often find good HR people with good intentions who nonetheless end up doing shitty things to employees when it's a choice between being nice and protecting the company.

jimmydddd 7y ago

Could you please clarify? My understanding is that HR's job is to protect the company, not the employee. If the employee is "helped," it's typically to shield the company from lawsuits. So, acting in the employee's best interest is often aligned with helping the company. But, if the employee's interest is seen as diverging from that of the company, HR will "side" with the company against the employee. Do you disagree?

michaelt 7y ago
Let's say there are several independent reports of an important, senior manager sexually assaulting employees, and the HR manager wants to cover it up. They only need a one or two people able and willing to deliver a cover-up, not the entire department. It could well be 95% of people in the profession would categorically refuse if asked to do so.

luckydata 7y ago

In my experience the stereotype is well deserved. I have in the past reported impropriety during a company conference, and specified I was doing it to make sure people were advised to knock it off and avoid getting ourselves a Uber style scandal, I was put on probation right away (the CTO was involved) and I had to leave the company right after that. It wasn't worth to sue them and frankly the job sucked, but that taught me the valuable lesson that even if you're looking out for the business, HR is still not your ally. HR serves executives and nobody else.