3 ms·

Maybe it will help to explicate what rubs me the wrong way about "corporate HR". The facade of process masking Machiavellian reality is what rubs me the wrong

Maybe it will help to explicate what rubs me the wrong way about "corporate HR". The facade of process masking Machiavellian reality is what rubs me the wrong way. I'm always astounded by folks who don't understand that companies are feudal kingdoms and that all the stuff about processes and protecting people who are innocent/do the right thing is just hot air. And I've never been on the wrong side of HR, so this isn't a personal issue per se. But when I mentor new grads, I do make sure to find some time to explain how companies really work and stress that "getting along" with people is the most important skill. I've always felt like the world would be a better place -- and workplaces would function better -- if Corporate HR was just honest: "this company is someone else's property, you have no rights to that property, we do what we want, so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks unless you're ok leaving." Most OSS projects aren't so dissimilar. I don't know about Rust, and suspect "Core" might have a different meaning here. But in most projects the core (aka primary) developers effectively own the project. Rules to the contrary are at best aspirational and at worst lies. If you disagree with the primary developers, it's much better the just fork the project than to imagine that there's some fair and rational process by which you will be able to plead your case and over-ride their edicts. Again, this isn't a value judgement. It's just a description of how reality works.

poszlem 5y ago
This 100 times this. It's especially weird since the whole idea of open source was that you can just fork a project if you don't like it.
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
The problem is that people want the facade. I generally expect managers to present themselves as first among equals, even though I understand in extremis that's not true, and I wouldn't work in an organization where they do a bad job at pretending. It's my understanding that my mindset is pretty common, although I have to admit that I'm not sure because this isn't the kind of thing I'm comfortable polling my coworkers about.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  My post is about HR processes, not management relationships. And what I said about the ultimate authority was about ownership, not management. Managers are also just laborers. As laborers, they also need to know that "getting along with people" is most important. > I generally expect managers to present themselves as first among equals, even though I understand in extremis that's not true, and I wouldn't work in an organization where they do a bad job at pretending. If you're a senior engineer making anything less than 500k or so, your first-line and even second-line managers do have a complicated power relationship with you. I.e., another way of saying what you said here is that your labor is in high enough demand that your mangers have to treat you with a certain amount of respect in day-to-day interactions. A manager who doesn't show enough politeness/deference will have high turn-over, and in most situations that spells problems. Again, because they aren't capital owners. They are laborers. Like I said, "getting along with people" is probably the most important skill. Finding yourself in an HR process means you failed at "getting along with people". The rest is noise. Don't rely on HR. Get along with people.
eldavido 5y ago
I have a nagging feeling the rules are different in fields like sales, trading, sports, or others where performance is more precisely quantified. The reality, somewhat sad in my view, is that in most places, software shops, architecture firms, academia, pretty much anywhere where individual measurement isn't possible and most work is done in teams, most performance reviews are a thin veneer over a high school popularity contest. You get ahead by being liked, something that's at best loosely correlated to how much work you get done, or at what quality. Of note, the best manager I worked for (in software) ran a great team by making work about the work, not being liked, or delivering great powerpoints, or other secondary things.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > sales Most types of sales labor is a complete commodity. For every one high-powered b2b software sales person there are hundreds of folks selling commodity laptops to rural schools, pushing trim upgrades in car dealerships, cold-calling convenience store owners, etc. The high school politics in those sorts of sales shops are next-level. > trading Trading desks are often whole orgs, often with diffuse and difficult to measure contributions. Not so dissimilar from software shops, really. In fact, often literally are software shops! > sports I don't have first-hand experience with anything other than climbing and skiing, where "hussle" and getting along with everyone from sponsors to gym/resort owners to random community members is way more important than raw talent. At the end of the day you're basically an influencer. Instead of HR imposing rules to help with reputation management work, you're doing the HR reputation management job yourself.
yeputons 5y ago
> "this company is someone else's property, you have no rights to that property, we do what we want, so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks unless you're ok leaving." > so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks "Play nice", "don't piss off" and "the wrong folks" are open to interpretation. I think having these at least somewhat codified is very helpful. Cultures differ a lot, and what may be considered "a useful, clear, concise and honest code review" in one is "blatant non-constructive shitstorm from an arrogant a-hole" in another. However, such codification probably requires specific examples rather than "please be respectful to all people regardless of X, Y, Z" or "don't piss off people". For example, I really like how Recurse Center's "Social Rules" are described: https://web.archive.org/web/20211117232710/https://www.recurse.com/manual#sec-environment https://web.archive.org/web/20211117232710/https://www.recur... > Most of our social rules really boil down to "don't be a jerk" or "don't be annoying." Of course, almost nobody sets out to be a jerk or annoying, so telling people not to be jerks isn't a very productive strategy. That's why our social rules are designed to curtail specific behavior we've found to be destructive to a supportive, productive, and fun learning environment.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > "Play nice", "don't piss off" and "the wrong folks" are open to interpretation. Yup. It's sometimes hard to figure out how power flows and the social preferences of the people who modulate those flows. Getting along in large orgs is a skill that requires both experience and intentional work. The problem is that people rarely run into trouble due to abrasiveness among peers, so examples like the Recurse center can be helpful but are woefully incomplete as a guide to corporate politics. Getting along while being ambitious is anything but easy. There are no rules. At the end of the day, "social skills" and "social intelligence" are just that -- forms of skill and intelligence. "Getting Along" is always a learned behavior, albiet does come more naturally to some than others, and is far easier said than done. These skills are often learned pretty early on in life. It's one of the reasons I encourage folks who are considering home-schooling to at least send their kids to one year of high school.

poszlem 5y ago

This 100 times this. It's especially weird since the whole idea of open source was that you can just fork a project if you don't like it.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

The problem is that people want the facade. I generally expect managers to present themselves as first among equals, even though I understand in extremis that's not true, and I wouldn't work in an organization where they do a bad job at pretending. It's my understanding that my mindset is pretty common, although I have to admit that I'm not sure because this isn't the kind of thing I'm comfortable polling my coworkers about.

throwawaygh 5y ago
My post is about HR processes, not management relationships. And what I said about the ultimate authority was about ownership, not management. Managers are also just laborers. As laborers, they also need to know that "getting along with people" is most important. > I generally expect managers to present themselves as first among equals, even though I understand in extremis that's not true, and I wouldn't work in an organization where they do a bad job at pretending. If you're a senior engineer making anything less than 500k or so, your first-line and even second-line managers do have a complicated power relationship with you. I.e., another way of saying what you said here is that your labor is in high enough demand that your mangers have to treat you with a certain amount of respect in day-to-day interactions. A manager who doesn't show enough politeness/deference will have high turn-over, and in most situations that spells problems. Again, because they aren't capital owners. They are laborers. Like I said, "getting along with people" is probably the most important skill. Finding yourself in an HR process means you failed at "getting along with people". The rest is noise. Don't rely on HR. Get along with people.

eldavido 5y ago

I have a nagging feeling the rules are different in fields like sales, trading, sports, or others where performance is more precisely quantified. The reality, somewhat sad in my view, is that in most places, software shops, architecture firms, academia, pretty much anywhere where individual measurement isn't possible and most work is done in teams, most performance reviews are a thin veneer over a high school popularity contest. You get ahead by being liked, something that's at best loosely correlated to how much work you get done, or at what quality. Of note, the best manager I worked for (in software) ran a great team by making work about the work, not being liked, or delivering great powerpoints, or other secondary things.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> sales Most types of sales labor is a complete commodity. For every one high-powered b2b software sales person there are hundreds of folks selling commodity laptops to rural schools, pushing trim upgrades in car dealerships, cold-calling convenience store owners, etc. The high school politics in those sorts of sales shops are next-level. > trading Trading desks are often whole orgs, often with diffuse and difficult to measure contributions. Not so dissimilar from software shops, really. In fact, often literally are software shops! > sports I don't have first-hand experience with anything other than climbing and skiing, where "hussle" and getting along with everyone from sponsors to gym/resort owners to random community members is way more important than raw talent. At the end of the day you're basically an influencer. Instead of HR imposing rules to help with reputation management work, you're doing the HR reputation management job yourself.

yeputons 5y ago

> "this company is someone else's property, you have no rights to that property, we do what we want, so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks unless you're ok leaving." > so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks "Play nice", "don't piss off" and "the wrong folks" are open to interpretation. I think having these at least somewhat codified is very helpful. Cultures differ a lot, and what may be considered "a useful, clear, concise and honest code review" in one is "blatant non-constructive shitstorm from an arrogant a-hole" in another. However, such codification probably requires specific examples rather than "please be respectful to all people regardless of X, Y, Z" or "don't piss off people". For example, I really like how Recurse Center's "Social Rules" are described: https://web.archive.org/web/20211117232710/https://www.recurse.com/manual#sec-environment https://web.archive.org/web/20211117232710/https://www.recur... > Most of our social rules really boil down to "don't be a jerk" or "don't be annoying." Of course, almost nobody sets out to be a jerk or annoying, so telling people not to be jerks isn't a very productive strategy. That's why our social rules are designed to curtail specific behavior we've found to be destructive to a supportive, productive, and fun learning environment.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> "Play nice", "don't piss off" and "the wrong folks" are open to interpretation. Yup. It's sometimes hard to figure out how power flows and the social preferences of the people who modulate those flows. Getting along in large orgs is a skill that requires both experience and intentional work. The problem is that people rarely run into trouble due to abrasiveness among peers, so examples like the Recurse center can be helpful but are woefully incomplete as a guide to corporate politics. Getting along while being ambitious is anything but easy. There are no rules. At the end of the day, "social skills" and "social intelligence" are just that -- forms of skill and intelligence. "Getting Along" is always a learned behavior, albiet does come more naturally to some than others, and is far easier said than done. These skills are often learned pretty early on in life. It's one of the reasons I encourage folks who are considering home-schooling to at least send their kids to one year of high school.