3 ms·
> Google could solve a lot of problems by essentially firing every VP they have. What's shocking was there was a time at google where management was forced to
by bb88 7y ago
> Google could solve a lot of problems by essentially firing every VP they have.
What's shocking was there was a time at google where management was forced to prove their existence was necessary.
https://rework.withgoogle.com/subjects/managers/ https://rework.withgoogle.com/subjects/managers/
One of the problems of course is giving managers feedback. It's hard. It's ugly sometimes. It's always fraught with risk, since you are the one without typically any power in the situation.
But the true canary in the coal mine is when the good employees feel like their feedback isn't heeded, and then they leave. And they can because well, they're good. And HR, having gone through all the trouble of hiring the best and the brightest, are just walking them out the door.
If HR stands up for the employees, then that's a different story than HR being lap dogs for the powerful. Currently turnover numbers probably just sits on page 248 in a footnote of the quarterly HR report and lands on some executive's desk who may or may not care about it.
As an aside, I once told an HR director that the problem with HR is the name: Human Resources -- as in "Humans are Resources". She told me the inside joke at her company was that HR stood for "Happiness Removal".
- random001 7y agoI'm sorry, what's wrong with the notion that 'Humans are resources"?
- bmiller2 7y ago“We need to stop confusing human value with economic value. We don't exist to serve the market. The market exists to serve us.”
- bb88 7y agoWow, Andrew Yang tweeted that just yesterday. Prescient. I like him more and more.
- ehvatum 7y agoThe market exists to serve us? Cool. But who is providing this service?
- bb88 7y agoIn the US, it's the government that created the free market, and did it for the people. The US government is "of the people, by the people, for the people." ...Or at least it used to be. Now maybe in 2020 now, "people" can be replaced with "corporations".
- smaryjerry 7y agoIt is upsetting to some because some people assume a resource can't have feelings. Like saying "women are objects." Obviously this isn't what is meant with Human Resources but in today's world people want to argue over naming conventions as if their perspective of a name or even a definition is the only right one because it fits their goal. Make no mistake if you called Human Resources instead Team Builders someone would eventually a few years down the road get mad because you can only build buildings with objects and so the name doesn't do justice to the feelings of people again.
- bb88 7y agoIt's simpler than that. Things and people inherit the properties of what they're called. That's why slurs are so powerful. e.g. n-word, c-word. I don't believe I've ever seen a post on HN about how wonderful a Human Resources department has ever been, or ever treated anyone fairly. Feel free to prove me wrong here. If you can dehumanize humans, then you can treat them like objects. It's easier to do firings or layoffs, or cut back on pay raises and benefits.
- ChrisCinelli 7y agoThe problem is not that human are resources. They are. But from a production point of view, the problem is when you think that a human is equivalent to another with the same title and they are easily interchangeable.