8 ms·

This reminds me of a truism that most people seem to forgot... HR is never your friend. HR is there to protect the company and nothing more. What's worse, eve

by p_l 6y ago

This reminds me of a truism that most people seem to forgot... HR is never your friend. HR is there to protect the company and nothing more. What's worse, even if you try running an ethical one, if you grow big enough at some point you start hiring directly into HR people with experience with HR elsewhere, and that means importing the same bad practices - this is not a defense of Google, it's more a reminder to all of us that it can happen even in your own company.

mojuba 6y ago
Which applies to all areas. As your organization grows it more and more attracts people who typically just switch jobs between organizations of the same size, and bring their culture, "best practices" that are typically the worst, approaches to work and other values with them. At the same time you can see founders caring less and less about what's going on. Is there a way to stop this? I don't think so for as long as there's a lot of investment money in circulation. Raising money for any more or less successful tech business is so cheap these days that founders rarely think of the alternatives, such as not raising and staying lean.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  What you're describing is regression to the mean (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean). I would think avoiding this involves maintaining a high bar for recruiting, at the cost of having to hire more slowly and probably pay more than your competitors. That, or you accept it and become a Java shop.
  - dennis_jeeves 6y ago
    Yep a high bar has to be constantly maintained even if it mean that 'growth' is slow: My thoughts on the subject: https://realminority.wordpress.com/ https://realminority.wordpress.com/
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > That, or you accept it and become a Java shop. This, in a topic focusing on HR... It hits far too close to home. Java is now our recommended language, and HR is implementing all kinds of policies like “pay leveling” and “engineering promotions require job reqs complete with interviews” and “pay raises can only occur in N month”.
    - beaconstudios 6y ago
      When bureaucrats are in charge of the business, it will be run as a bureaucracy: focusing on standardisation, quantified measurements and derisking. It's a process of stagnation.
      - Dracophoenix 6y ago
        Well how else to make sure all your dollars go to the right place? I'm not suggesting that a rigid, top-down structure is necessary, but there must some way of pursuing effectiveness, knowledge, and efficiency with relying on serendipity or cargo cult superstition. With this in mind, I'd argue the opposite of your claim: stagnation by bureaucracy is a conditional failure to achieve your stated ends. It isn't the inevitable evolution towards decline that you suggest it is. A working bureaucracy should behave like a working scientific instrument.
        beaconstudios 6y ago
        Innovation can't come from measuring what you already have. You can use heuristics or metrics to confirm you've done the right thing once you try something but you can't use them effectively to innovate. Only to optimise, which is stagnation if you don't also innovate.
switch007 6y ago
What grates me is that HR is full of people who go out of their way to appear as your friend. It's plain deception. If they were merely unapproachable and grumpy that wouldn't be so bad. But they put on their smiley faces, ask about your well-being etc all while screwing you behind closed doors.
- p_l 6y ago
  Simultaneously both sad and funny is that sometimes they are genuinely trying. Which led to awkward case, when I - already leaving the company - joined so-called "haters meeting" which was supposed to bring feedback to the company, unfiltered... and I made head of HR cry by demolishing the whole "support for employee training and certification" program :( The top management (i.e. owner representatives) didn't see anything wrong with their turbo-libertarian policy (or were unsuccessfully trying to hide that they didn't actually want to provide any support) and left HR holding the bucket. Learning that pretty much anyone who wasn't wide eyed junior that has yet to finish studies considered the whole training&certification program to be a fig leaf that was more hassle than its worth (the quote was "anyone self-motivated enough the way management claims they want, is also wise enough to not lose time on something with zero expected payoff and will get training/certs on their own - then leave for better place"). That company has later went with worse and worse HR, in fact - a friend of mine who stayed on for few more years talked about how successive changes in HR went worse and worse. The one I faced could be considered last somewhat good team :(
dx034 6y ago
And also that choices of HR aren't easy. Should they've fired the other person for a remark that might've been with good intent? That would be at least as damaging. And they probably had a talk with other people involved, not all actions are disclosed to the affected employee.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Why jump immediately to firing? Talk to people first. Don’t start the process by making someone go on medical leave (medical leave is typically paid at a much lower rate than working; it depends on who the company hires (think Aflack and similar)).
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Cruz pushed the topic three times, on the third (after being told the case was closed the 2nd time) they told him to go on leave.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      "We have come to the conclusion that you shouldn't feel insulted by this, so we're going to force you to take a break on reduced pay and talk to a psychologist." Repeatedly going back to HR with this issue clearly indicates that Cruz felt uncomfortable working in this environment. It's unfortunate how this would be enough to trigger a sexism claim (which is backed by law), but not a racism claim.
      - Chris2048 6y ago
        That's very speculative; it could indicate Cruz felt uncomfortable working in this environment. It might be enough to trigger a sexism claim - though I'm not sure if a single comment is enough to prove a hostile working environment. I could just as well speculate that badgering HR over a single inconsequential incident got Cruz flagged as a nuisance s.t. they attempted to move him out.
arethuza 6y ago
I remember many years ago working at a large company that was proud to display "HR Help Hotline" posters at conspicuous locations in all offices. We used to joke that the number was connected to an automated P45 printer.... The only time you'd see one of the HR folks about you knew someone was going to get fired - it was the only reason they'd ever show up at our site.
- p_l 6y ago
  This sometimes backfires hilariously when HR is trying to do something good. Case in point from my job history: Official policy (mandated by parent company) was that externals (i.e. contractors etc.) weren't included in christmas event or anything like that. Due to unrelated things the "externals" made a significant chunk of the workers, and well, HR actually wanted to do something good and bypass the policy. So they send an email telling everyone in the external group to meet on day X in conference room Y. Imagine bushy-tailed head of HR coming with "hey, the policy doesn't allow it, so we're doing it off the books, everyone is invited just without paper trail" to a big conference room full of people expecting to hear they are going to be fired...
- yerwhat01010 6y ago
  > an automated P45 printer For the non-Brits: a "P45" is a form you get given when you leave a job, for example if you're fired.
furyg3 6y ago
Well, the comment could be made about work more generally, at least at any company that's bigger than say 5-10 people: Your work is not your friend, and even your colleagues who are your friends outside of work are not your friends while at work. HR can very much act with your best interests at heart... so long as those best interests align with the company's best interests.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
>if you grow big enough at some point you start hiring directly into HR people with experience with HR elsewhere, One does have the option not to grow, and stick with only the right people, correct? The temptation to grow big I guess is huge.

by p_l 6y ago

mojuba 6y ago

Which applies to all areas. As your organization grows it more and more attracts people who typically just switch jobs between organizations of the same size, and bring their culture, "best practices" that are typically the worst, approaches to work and other values with them. At the same time you can see founders caring less and less about what's going on. Is there a way to stop this? I don't think so for as long as there's a lot of investment money in circulation. Raising money for any more or less successful tech business is so cheap these days that founders rarely think of the alternatives, such as not raising and staying lean.

beaconstudios 6y ago
What you're describing is regression to the mean (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean). I would think avoiding this involves maintaining a high bar for recruiting, at the cost of having to hire more slowly and probably pay more than your competitors. That, or you accept it and become a Java shop.
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago
  Yep a high bar has to be constantly maintained even if it mean that 'growth' is slow: My thoughts on the subject: https://realminority.wordpress.com/ https://realminority.wordpress.com/
- falcolas 6y ago
  > That, or you accept it and become a Java shop. This, in a topic focusing on HR... It hits far too close to home. Java is now our recommended language, and HR is implementing all kinds of policies like “pay leveling” and “engineering promotions require job reqs complete with interviews” and “pay raises can only occur in N month”.
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    When bureaucrats are in charge of the business, it will be run as a bureaucracy: focusing on standardisation, quantified measurements and derisking. It's a process of stagnation.
    - Dracophoenix 6y ago
      Well how else to make sure all your dollars go to the right place? I'm not suggesting that a rigid, top-down structure is necessary, but there must some way of pursuing effectiveness, knowledge, and efficiency with relying on serendipity or cargo cult superstition. With this in mind, I'd argue the opposite of your claim: stagnation by bureaucracy is a conditional failure to achieve your stated ends. It isn't the inevitable evolution towards decline that you suggest it is. A working bureaucracy should behave like a working scientific instrument.
      - beaconstudios 6y ago
        Innovation can't come from measuring what you already have. You can use heuristics or metrics to confirm you've done the right thing once you try something but you can't use them effectively to innovate. Only to optimise, which is stagnation if you don't also innovate.

switch007 6y ago

What grates me is that HR is full of people who go out of their way to appear as your friend. It's plain deception. If they were merely unapproachable and grumpy that wouldn't be so bad. But they put on their smiley faces, ask about your well-being etc all while screwing you behind closed doors.

p_l 6y ago
Simultaneously both sad and funny is that sometimes they are genuinely trying. Which led to awkward case, when I - already leaving the company - joined so-called "haters meeting" which was supposed to bring feedback to the company, unfiltered... and I made head of HR cry by demolishing the whole "support for employee training and certification" program :( The top management (i.e. owner representatives) didn't see anything wrong with their turbo-libertarian policy (or were unsuccessfully trying to hide that they didn't actually want to provide any support) and left HR holding the bucket. Learning that pretty much anyone who wasn't wide eyed junior that has yet to finish studies considered the whole training&certification program to be a fig leaf that was more hassle than its worth (the quote was "anyone self-motivated enough the way management claims they want, is also wise enough to not lose time on something with zero expected payoff and will get training/certs on their own - then leave for better place"). That company has later went with worse and worse HR, in fact - a friend of mine who stayed on for few more years talked about how successive changes in HR went worse and worse. The one I faced could be considered last somewhat good team :(

dx034 6y ago

And also that choices of HR aren't easy. Should they've fired the other person for a remark that might've been with good intent? That would be at least as damaging. And they probably had a talk with other people involved, not all actions are disclosed to the affected employee.

falcolas 6y ago
Why jump immediately to firing? Talk to people first. Don’t start the process by making someone go on medical leave (medical leave is typically paid at a much lower rate than working; it depends on who the company hires (think Aflack and similar)).
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Cruz pushed the topic three times, on the third (after being told the case was closed the 2nd time) they told him to go on leave.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    "We have come to the conclusion that you shouldn't feel insulted by this, so we're going to force you to take a break on reduced pay and talk to a psychologist." Repeatedly going back to HR with this issue clearly indicates that Cruz felt uncomfortable working in this environment. It's unfortunate how this would be enough to trigger a sexism claim (which is backed by law), but not a racism claim.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      That's very speculative; it could indicate Cruz felt uncomfortable working in this environment. It might be enough to trigger a sexism claim - though I'm not sure if a single comment is enough to prove a hostile working environment. I could just as well speculate that badgering HR over a single inconsequential incident got Cruz flagged as a nuisance s.t. they attempted to move him out.

arethuza 6y ago

I remember many years ago working at a large company that was proud to display "HR Help Hotline" posters at conspicuous locations in all offices. We used to joke that the number was connected to an automated P45 printer.... The only time you'd see one of the HR folks about you knew someone was going to get fired - it was the only reason they'd ever show up at our site.

p_l 6y ago
This sometimes backfires hilariously when HR is trying to do something good. Case in point from my job history: Official policy (mandated by parent company) was that externals (i.e. contractors etc.) weren't included in christmas event or anything like that. Due to unrelated things the "externals" made a significant chunk of the workers, and well, HR actually wanted to do something good and bypass the policy. So they send an email telling everyone in the external group to meet on day X in conference room Y. Imagine bushy-tailed head of HR coming with "hey, the policy doesn't allow it, so we're doing it off the books, everyone is invited just without paper trail" to a big conference room full of people expecting to hear they are going to be fired...
yerwhat01010 6y ago
> an automated P45 printer For the non-Brits: a "P45" is a form you get given when you leave a job, for example if you're fired.

furyg3 6y ago

Well, the comment could be made about work more generally, at least at any company that's bigger than say 5-10 people: Your work is not your friend, and even your colleagues who are your friends outside of work are not your friends while at work. HR can very much act with your best interests at heart... so long as those best interests align with the company's best interests.

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

>if you grow big enough at some point you start hiring directly into HR people with experience with HR elsewhere, One does have the option not to grow, and stick with only the right people, correct? The temptation to grow big I guess is huge.