3 ms·

Not PR, HR (i.e Human Resources). In other words, someone who should have been working to clean up this mess months ago.

by MarkTee 13y ago

duncan_bayne 13y ago
Indeed, but it takes time to clean up a culture (if it's at all possible). This response suggests that their HR hire is doing his or her job well, at least now.
- 001sky 13y ago
  This response suggests that ... Disagree. The situtation is highly ambiguous. HR is a game of "the best victories are wars not fought". And so in some regards, its too late. On the other-hand, if HR was on the right...they were "over-ruled" by more than one of CEO/founders/sr execs. This surely means this person has diminished capacity to act. If not due to competence, than due to "lack of formiddableness". Because it shouldn't take a public PR nightmare to convince (ie, show some leadership) that following HR101 is a good idea. It is only the rare edge case that this person was in perfect pitch (and ignored) yesterday and will be held in higher regard tomorrow. So, this is why things are not clear cut here for anyone.
fpgeek 13y ago
Absent a time machine, how could a hire in January have been working to clean up this mess "months ago"? Blame the CEO and the rest of the management team for not hiring a good HR person sooner if you want, but I don't see how you fault the person who just walked into this mess. Unless you're blaming them for not seeing the mess or walking into it with their eyes open. To me, that seems counterproductive. Having people with the appropriate skills take on the difficult work of improving these cultures is part of how things get better.
- MarkTee 13y ago
  Sorry, for some reason I was thinking that they were hired in January of 2013. I wasn't suggesting that HR bring forth radical change, either, merely recognize the problems and work towards finding a solution (even though that would have been extremely difficult in itself, considering how little the executives seemed to help).

Not PR, HR (i.e Human Resources). In other words, someone who should have been working to clean up this mess months ago.

by MarkTee 13y ago

Not PR, HR (i.e Human Resources). In other words, someone who should have been working to clean up this mess months ago.

duncan_bayne 13y ago

Indeed, but it takes time to clean up a culture (if it's at all possible). This response suggests that their HR hire is doing his or her job well, at least now.

001sky 13y ago
This response suggests that ... Disagree. The situtation is highly ambiguous. HR is a game of "the best victories are wars not fought". And so in some regards, its too late. On the other-hand, if HR was on the right...they were "over-ruled" by more than one of CEO/founders/sr execs. This surely means this person has diminished capacity to act. If not due to competence, than due to "lack of formiddableness". Because it shouldn't take a public PR nightmare to convince (ie, show some leadership) that following HR101 is a good idea. It is only the rare edge case that this person was in perfect pitch (and ignored) yesterday and will be held in higher regard tomorrow. So, this is why things are not clear cut here for anyone.

fpgeek 13y ago

Absent a time machine, how could a hire in January have been working to clean up this mess "months ago"? Blame the CEO and the rest of the management team for not hiring a good HR person sooner if you want, but I don't see how you fault the person who just walked into this mess. Unless you're blaming them for not seeing the mess or walking into it with their eyes open. To me, that seems counterproductive. Having people with the appropriate skills take on the difficult work of improving these cultures is part of how things get better.

MarkTee 13y ago
Sorry, for some reason I was thinking that they were hired in January of 2013. I wasn't suggesting that HR bring forth radical change, either, merely recognize the problems and work towards finding a solution (even though that would have been extremely difficult in itself, considering how little the executives seemed to help).