3 ms·

The head of HR was working closely with their CIO who quit so she was the best fit for the role. The HR department is presumably small so it's no issue to absor

The head of HR was working closely with their CIO who quit so she was the best fit for the role. The HR department is presumably small so it's no issue to absorb it into tech. The AI spin sounds a bit fake.

constantcrying 1y ago
>The HR department is presumably small so it's no issue to absorb it into tech. That is a terrible reason to merge departments. You want people with similar tasks who need to communicate the most be closer together. Putting unrelated people into a department is an easy way to create conflict and dysfunction. >The head of HR was working closely with their CIO who quit so she was the best fit for the role. Very consistently work places where people in important management positions had no clue about what the people under them actually do where the worst places I worked at. At the same time having superiors who understand your work makes communications with them much easier. Having a person with no tech experience leading a tech department is a very easy way to create a terrible tech department.
- cinntaile 1y ago
  It depends on how they merge it, maybe they merged it in name only. > Having a person with no tech experience leading a tech department is a very easy way to create a terrible tech department. Oh yes, I agree. It sounds like a terrible idea overall.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  > You want people with similar tasks who need to communicate the most be closer together. I'd shorten that to "You want people who need to communicate the most be closer together." The worst thing to ever happen at a video game company I worked at was when they separated the art department from the programming department. Artist needed to communicate with programmers and visa versa to make the best product. Instead they got siloed by department and the communication went south. Programmers didn't easily learn pain points and needs of artists and artists didn't learn how to use the latest features because communication became harder
  - jfengel 1y ago
    Often, employees need to communicate to two sets of people. The HR people, for example, need to talk to the rank and file employees, and also each other. In house developers talk to IT and to their users. There is an eternal cycle of bringing a function together, then decentralizing it, and repeating. No matter what you do, someone is going to find it convenient and someone else will find it inconvenient.
- paulcole 1y ago
  > Having a person with no tech experience leading a tech department is a very easy way to create a terrible tech department. I agree with this. Having a tech person lead the tech department creates a reasonable floor for output of the team. However, I think the ceiling is higher when a non-tech person is leading the group. When a tech person is leading the group the ceiling is (roughly) their technical ability. The non-tech person can be more open to new ideas, alternative approaches, flexibility, change, etc. because they don’t have the same built-in biases and preconceived notions as a tech person. Again this is a risky approach and has a high failure rate but the biggest wins can be massive.
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    >However, I think the ceiling is higher when a non-tech person is leading the group. When a tech person is leading the group the ceiling is (roughly) their technical ability. The non-tech person can be more open to new ideas, alternative approaches, flexibility, change, etc. because they don’t have the same built-in biases and preconceived notions as a tech person. Wrong. The person fundamentally does not understand what the employees are doing and can not make informed decisions. You are correct that the decisions will include more "out of the box" thinking, but this will make the entire department a torture chamber for the employees as they are suffering under decisions which are obviously nonsensical and counter productive. Prioritizing novelty over competency is a road straight to dysfunction. The people who are the best at implementing new concepts are the rare cases of people who have both a deep technical foundation and great leadership skills. Those actually can come up with new Ideas which work.
    - paulcole 1y ago
      > Wrong Lol sorry I didn’t realize.
      - constantcrying 1y ago
        No Problem. Glad that you realized your error after reading my actual reasoning hidden after that one word sentence.

constantcrying 1y ago

>The HR department is presumably small so it's no issue to absorb it into tech. That is a terrible reason to merge departments. You want people with similar tasks who need to communicate the most be closer together. Putting unrelated people into a department is an easy way to create conflict and dysfunction. >The head of HR was working closely with their CIO who quit so she was the best fit for the role. Very consistently work places where people in important management positions had no clue about what the people under them actually do where the worst places I worked at. At the same time having superiors who understand your work makes communications with them much easier. Having a person with no tech experience leading a tech department is a very easy way to create a terrible tech department.

cinntaile 1y ago
It depends on how they merge it, maybe they merged it in name only. > Having a person with no tech experience leading a tech department is a very easy way to create a terrible tech department. Oh yes, I agree. It sounds like a terrible idea overall.
socalgal2 1y ago
> You want people with similar tasks who need to communicate the most be closer together. I'd shorten that to "You want people who need to communicate the most be closer together." The worst thing to ever happen at a video game company I worked at was when they separated the art department from the programming department. Artist needed to communicate with programmers and visa versa to make the best product. Instead they got siloed by department and the communication went south. Programmers didn't easily learn pain points and needs of artists and artists didn't learn how to use the latest features because communication became harder
- jfengel 1y ago
  Often, employees need to communicate to two sets of people. The HR people, for example, need to talk to the rank and file employees, and also each other. In house developers talk to IT and to their users. There is an eternal cycle of bringing a function together, then decentralizing it, and repeating. No matter what you do, someone is going to find it convenient and someone else will find it inconvenient.
paulcole 1y ago
> Having a person with no tech experience leading a tech department is a very easy way to create a terrible tech department. I agree with this. Having a tech person lead the tech department creates a reasonable floor for output of the team. However, I think the ceiling is higher when a non-tech person is leading the group. When a tech person is leading the group the ceiling is (roughly) their technical ability. The non-tech person can be more open to new ideas, alternative approaches, flexibility, change, etc. because they don’t have the same built-in biases and preconceived notions as a tech person. Again this is a risky approach and has a high failure rate but the biggest wins can be massive.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  >However, I think the ceiling is higher when a non-tech person is leading the group. When a tech person is leading the group the ceiling is (roughly) their technical ability. The non-tech person can be more open to new ideas, alternative approaches, flexibility, change, etc. because they don’t have the same built-in biases and preconceived notions as a tech person. Wrong. The person fundamentally does not understand what the employees are doing and can not make informed decisions. You are correct that the decisions will include more "out of the box" thinking, but this will make the entire department a torture chamber for the employees as they are suffering under decisions which are obviously nonsensical and counter productive. Prioritizing novelty over competency is a road straight to dysfunction. The people who are the best at implementing new concepts are the rare cases of people who have both a deep technical foundation and great leadership skills. Those actually can come up with new Ideas which work.
  - paulcole 1y ago
    > Wrong Lol sorry I didn’t realize.
    - constantcrying 1y ago
      No Problem. Glad that you realized your error after reading my actual reasoning hidden after that one word sentence.