8 ms·

Nice, very classy of you. Tell me again, how does it feel to time travel here from the fifties?

by eshvk 14y ago

enko 14y ago
Why, did they tell the truth in the fifties or something? I assume "classy" is your stand-in word for politically correct. I can see that no-one likes what I said but I assure you it's my honest feeling. HR departments' best contribution to an organisation is cute HR girls. You can deny this truth, or perhaps try to change the way of things. Clicking to downvote me, of course, changes absolutely nothing.
pinaceae 14y ago
well, it is a correct observation that HR (and marketing) departments have the highest female ratio in pretty much any company. let's look at famous examples: Carly Fiorina? Marketing. Brigitte Ederer (Siemens)? HR. Meg Whitman? Marketing (started as a Brand Manager) the cute moniker is unnecessary, I agree. the overall observation is correct. i agree in particular with the fact that once HR takes over hiring from the team-leaders, the company has jumped the shark. one of the core tasks for a manager is hiring, ensuring his/her team is correctly staffed and has enough fresh blood to ensure senior people can move upward or away without disruption. if you don't, the Peter principle is in play. overzelous HR is the ruin of a company because by definition HR has no clue about the core competencies of a company, no feeling for its customers nor products/services.
- eshvk 14y ago
  You are missing the point and flailing at straw men. I don't care about the female ratio (Neither I think does any one who downvoted the OP). I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist).
  - enko 14y ago
    > I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy this attitude, to me, is unbelievable. Of course they are human beings. What else would they be? If you're going to make a claim about HR, make it on its merits. I have said they're nothing but a bunch of good looking girls. They have zero understanding about any of the roles they're hiring for, and no incentive to learn. Care to contradict me?
    - wazoox 14y ago
      I've been interviewed at a few large tech companies in the past 15 years, and the HR guys were... well, guys. And not remarkably good looking. I'm afraid that your opinion is just that, your opinion. And it's a sexist one with that.
      - enko 14y ago
        > your opinion is just that, your opinion And I never claimed otherwise. But I really resent your accusation of sexism, since I believe I am extremely fair to both sexes. It is a plain fact that the attitude towards HR departments here is mostly negative. It is another plain fact that those departments are mostly female. If these facts are sexist, then reality is sexist. Oh, and the all-male "IT department" is also richly deserving of criticism, though not by me since I jumped that ship long ago. I look forward to your devout claims of sexism when such a criticism does occur, however. It boils down to this: if you put the wrong people in charge of very important stuff, then (long term) you are fucked.
        lincolnq 14y ago
        OK, I'll bite. Your social error, leading to claims of sexism, was linking bad HR people and women. I believe you when you say that's what you've observed. But, whether you like it or not, it's not okay (in public, at least) to make statements which link gender, race, etc., with competence. No fair, you (or some other reader) might say. I'm just reporting my observations. But I claim that you have a responsibility to do more than simply report your observations, and it's because people are stupid. When we read "A and B go together," we humans immediately and instinctively (system 1) draw causal conclusions about A and B. It doesn't matter if it's anecdotal evidence; it doesn't matter that correlation does not equal causation. Not for System 1, anyway. And those causal conclusions lead to making bad subconscious assumptions, and later lead to actual sexism down the road. All because of comments like yours -- "A and B go together". So don't do it. Suppress your urge to report your observations when they could lead to others making sexist/racist assumptions in the future. Bad HR department? Say "bad HR department" and leave the part about gender out. (I would say that this only applies to speaking/writing in public. In private, you know who your audience is, and what conclusions they will draw from your words, so you can afford to be freer.)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
skrebbel 14y ago
Time travel from the fifties, learn computers, and make an HN account. That's pretty damn cool if you ask me.
sunstone 14y ago
When I took an MBA from a world top 15 school several years ago they directly advised companies to abolish the HR department. (Yes I know I'm hell banned.)

Nice, very classy of you. Tell me again, how does it feel to time travel here from the fifties?

by eshvk 14y ago

Nice, very classy of you. Tell me again, how does it feel to time travel here from the fifties?

enko 14y ago

Why, did they tell the truth in the fifties or something? I assume "classy" is your stand-in word for politically correct. I can see that no-one likes what I said but I assure you it's my honest feeling. HR departments' best contribution to an organisation is cute HR girls. You can deny this truth, or perhaps try to change the way of things. Clicking to downvote me, of course, changes absolutely nothing.

pinaceae 14y ago

well, it is a correct observation that HR (and marketing) departments have the highest female ratio in pretty much any company. let's look at famous examples: Carly Fiorina? Marketing. Brigitte Ederer (Siemens)? HR. Meg Whitman? Marketing (started as a Brand Manager) the cute moniker is unnecessary, I agree. the overall observation is correct. i agree in particular with the fact that once HR takes over hiring from the team-leaders, the company has jumped the shark. one of the core tasks for a manager is hiring, ensuring his/her team is correctly staffed and has enough fresh blood to ensure senior people can move upward or away without disruption. if you don't, the Peter principle is in play. overzelous HR is the ruin of a company because by definition HR has no clue about the core competencies of a company, no feeling for its customers nor products/services.

eshvk 14y ago
You are missing the point and flailing at straw men. I don't care about the female ratio (Neither I think does any one who downvoted the OP). I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist).
- enko 14y ago
  > I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy this attitude, to me, is unbelievable. Of course they are human beings. What else would they be? If you're going to make a claim about HR, make it on its merits. I have said they're nothing but a bunch of good looking girls. They have zero understanding about any of the roles they're hiring for, and no incentive to learn. Care to contradict me?
  - wazoox 14y ago
    I've been interviewed at a few large tech companies in the past 15 years, and the HR guys were... well, guys. And not remarkably good looking. I'm afraid that your opinion is just that, your opinion. And it's a sexist one with that.
    - enko 14y ago
      > your opinion is just that, your opinion And I never claimed otherwise. But I really resent your accusation of sexism, since I believe I am extremely fair to both sexes. It is a plain fact that the attitude towards HR departments here is mostly negative. It is another plain fact that those departments are mostly female. If these facts are sexist, then reality is sexist. Oh, and the all-male "IT department" is also richly deserving of criticism, though not by me since I jumped that ship long ago. I look forward to your devout claims of sexism when such a criticism does occur, however. It boils down to this: if you put the wrong people in charge of very important stuff, then (long term) you are fucked.
      - lincolnq 14y ago
        OK, I'll bite. Your social error, leading to claims of sexism, was linking bad HR people and women. I believe you when you say that's what you've observed. But, whether you like it or not, it's not okay (in public, at least) to make statements which link gender, race, etc., with competence. No fair, you (or some other reader) might say. I'm just reporting my observations. But I claim that you have a responsibility to do more than simply report your observations, and it's because people are stupid. When we read "A and B go together," we humans immediately and instinctively (system 1) draw causal conclusions about A and B. It doesn't matter if it's anecdotal evidence; it doesn't matter that correlation does not equal causation. Not for System 1, anyway. And those causal conclusions lead to making bad subconscious assumptions, and later lead to actual sexism down the road. All because of comments like yours -- "A and B go together". So don't do it. Suppress your urge to report your observations when they could lead to others making sexist/racist assumptions in the future. Bad HR department? Say "bad HR department" and leave the part about gender out. (I would say that this only applies to speaking/writing in public. In private, you know who your audience is, and what conclusions they will draw from your words, so you can afford to be freer.)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

skrebbel 14y ago

Time travel from the fifties, learn computers, and make an HN account. That's pretty damn cool if you ask me.

sunstone 14y ago

When I took an MBA from a world top 15 school several years ago they directly advised companies to abolish the HR department. (Yes I know I'm hell banned.)