3 ms·

Given your previous comments about mission creep, would you agree with me that the narrower the role the better? Out of curiosity, could you imagine an organiz

• Xylakant 13y ago
  > Given your previous comments about mission creep, would you agree with me that the narrower the role the better? No. Mission creep happens on broad and narrow roles the same. The better defined the role, the better. Constant reevaluation and adaption to changed realities is a must. > Out of curiosity, could you imagine an organization functioning where HR work was done by administrative assistants to team managers? Up to a certain degree yes, but there's the question how and where to allocate common functions if you have any. Depends on your organisation. That doesn't make the "HR department" disappear though, it just changes its name to "administrative assistants". It certainly makes things harder when people try to reach the HR department because that's what they're used to. All in all: If that fits your organisation, sure. Just make sure that the role is defined and someone is responsible and actually takes up the work. edit: see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6289282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6289282 for a point where a more centralised HR made a positive impact. An assistant to the team manager might easily have missed the broad picture because of a more narrow view, focused on the teams turnover rate.