HR companies/people?

[Blackbird]

Every time I hear the term "HR" I think "Human Remains"

Hahaha - as opposed to Industrial Relations (I.R) being Inhuman Remains.

[vifferman]

HR is an extremely important and particularly vital aspect of organisational performance. Performance management systems, staff development and training, occupational safety and health, negotiation of collective employment agreements, payroll and other matters don't just happen by themselves.

There is a significant strategic aspect to HR around retention and recruitment which involves more than making sure people get paid on time and bunging ads in the paper when there's a vacancy.

I agree with you (in principle), but our HR person doesn't do much of that - it's handled by other senior people.
OSH is someone else's responsibility, as is the payroll. Recruitment also seems to be handled by section heads, in conjunction with an external HR company.
I had quite close relationship with the HR person in my last job - she definitely did many of the things you mentioned, yet up until just after I left, she had quite a lowly position.

[Oakie]

I'll disagree with you on that point. HR is an extremely important and particularly vital aspect of organisational performance. Performance management systems, staff development and training, occupational safety and health, negotiation of collective employment agreements, payroll and other matters don't just happen by themselves.

There is a significant strategic aspect to HR around retention and recruitment which involves more than making sure people get paid on time and bunging ads in the paper when there's a vacancy.

Aww thanks Hitcher. I feel appreciated now.

Different organisations will do things differently. Health and Safety and Payroll aren't necessarily HR functions although I've done payroll for 15 years now and take on Health and Safety because I enjoy it. Recruitment should be initiated by HR and taken as far as first interviews to weed out the nutters then handed onto relevant managers to pick their favoured shortlisted candidate.

I strongly believe that HR is generally a support role to those who do the real work in an organisation but also believe that HR needs a seat at the management table to ensure that A) employment legislation is adhered to and B) to be aware of what is going on the organisation so the HR function can be geared towards the organisation's goals.

[MisterD]

Every time I hear the term "HR" I think "Human Remains"

Funny you should say that...my old man was an HR director for a multi-national and more than once his PA had calls asking "Is that the department of human remains?" must be a common condition you've contracted...

[Number One]

As Oakie says - HR is different in different organisations....some of the functions can be split meaning more specialised services or they can be all loaded on one person who then has to try to be good at everything - sometimes with very little success.

Recruitment agencies are good and bad - I have experienced sad pathetic waste of space ones but have also had the very good fortune of working with some that are fantastic at what they do.

In relation to HR within an organisation - The level of 'support' they can offer does (as with any role/discipline) depend on the experience and calibre of the people in those roles and also important is the level of support and buy in they have from their senior teams and managers and again that can be determined by the HR teams collective credibility and skill.

I used to think I wanted to be an HR 'generalist' (account management for example) the truth is that I actually like people too much and I dislike corporations and bureaucracy to my core. I naively thought HR was about looking after people - it is - to a point but at the end of the day often it is about protecting the employer and at times legally shafting the people while presenting the facade of supporting and looking after them.

Recruiting and all those specific HR functions are when delivered well vital and important functions that can have a very positive effect on the culture and bottom line of an organisation...but when delivered poorly of course they are a total waste of space...again as in the case of any function. I would argue that the IT functions I have had the displeasure of dealing with are total wastes of space full of boffins that couldn't relate to another person if their life depended on it who deliver crap systems that make working a trial... but then that's just my experience - some I am sure are worth their weight in gold.

Personally...in my role the job satisfaction comes from supporting individual staff members with their career and general development. Sometimes that means helping people to develop so they can get another role either inside the org or externally - either way this means either a more engaged staff member or saying goodbye to what might have become (if left to fester) a poor performer that drags others down with them.

Sadly too management/leadership calibre is not great. Trends internationally suggest that truely effective managers/leaders are in the minority. In my experience I have observed that TOO many managers are just 'technical experts' who hung around long enough to be promoted into leadership. Management and leadership is about getting work done through others not 'doing the work yourself' and the notion of supporting their teams and helping them grow to be effective productive team members is seen as a side issue and one they 'just don't have the time to do'.

[Blackbird]

Sadly too management/leadership calibre is not great.

Agreed, and even if they are, the organisation can still be somewhat dysfunctional. Not all that long ago, my old company got taken over by what is best described as a corporate raider (hint: his first name is Graeme ). Very talented guy, unbelievably wealthy but his aims are at considerable variance with most companies where long term strategy, development, "growing" people and so on are important.

My CEO was a real leader (as opposed to a manager) but he either had to follow the shorter term objectives of his boss or leave. These shorter term objectives included restructures, thinning employee numbers, screwing down wages and a whole lot more actions which are sustainable in the short term (e.g prior to on-selling the company) but do long-term damage. Sadly, the HR team are usually the people who have to execute these policies which does nothing to promote their cause.

It's a complicated world all right.

[Ixion]

Many a true word said in jest.

The ethos of HR departments may be deduced from their name.

Once, we had masters and servants. Fair enough, that's the reality. I don't mind being a servant. Then bosses and workers. Don't mind that, either. Worker is what I am .Proud of it. Then employers and employees. Nasty frenchification , but otherwise OK I guess.

Now we have directors and "resources". Human resources. Not people. Not workers. Not servants. Not even employees. Just "resources". Something that is exploited, used up, and then discarded. Says it all really. The truely ironic thing is that almost invariably the "human resources" department is composed of people who hate people . Hence their need to dehumanise the "resources". I will not be a "resource"

[crash harry]

Our HR dept (for the most part) are great. They do an awesome job, and save us a load of hassle. I wouldn't be without them. I suspect this is often the case with HR when they are internal to a larger company.

HR companies - ie companies that don't actually do anything else - ie recruiters, are generally arseholes. Particularly here in NZ. I've had some reasonable experience with them overseas (still well less than 50% were useful though) but here, 0% hit rate. They have all been less than useless.

Spend an hour or two of your time with their "consultant" who carefully takes down all of your details, what you're looking for, qualifications, etc and then sends you to an interview for something that you're not qualified for or even interested in.

Social parasites.

/rant

[Oakie]

The truely ironic thing is that almost invariably the "human resources" department is composed of people who hate people.

That's a pretty broad statement for such a narrow mind!

It's about as accurate as saying that "almost invariably the motorcycle workshop is composed of people who hate motorcycles".

Perhaps it does seem like that to you though because the HR Departments you've come across just don't like you? Some people just do rub us the wrong way ... even though most of us are able to hide it.

[Ixion]

..
Perhaps it does seem like that to you though because the HR Departments you've come across just don't like you? Some people just do rub us the wrong way ... even though most of us are able to hide it.

I'm sure they don't like me! I challenge them, and they detest that.

I really should have said, however, that HR departments generally hate people who do not think and behave exactly as they (the HR folk) do. In my experience HR practitioners are remarkably non-inclusive and have enormous trouble relating to anyone who does not share their (very circumscribed) opinions and philosophies . They are pretty much all out of a mold. Which is probably why so many posters relate unsatisfactory experiences in dealings with recruitment agencies. It is unlikely that anyone posting here would share the mind set of the typical HR person .

They are particularly inadequate at dealing with "non arty" people - which they usually resolve by being enormously condescending.

As always , generalities may not be valid for individuals, and I am sure that you are indeed an exception.

[Oakie]

Thanks for clarifying what you said Ixion. I have seen what you describe in some HR people I've worked with in the past and if that is what you've seen too then I understand your feelings. A couple of those I've worked with have been real pricks (or whatever the female equivalent of a 'prick' is?)

[oldrider]

Agreed, and even if they are, the organisation can still be somewhat dysfunctional. Not all that long ago, my old company got taken over by what is best described as a corporate raider (hint: his first name is Graeme ). Very talented guy, unbelievably wealthy but his aims are at considerable variance with most companies where long term strategy, development, "growing" people and so on are important.

My CEO was a real leader (as opposed to a manager) but he either had to follow the shorter term objectives of his boss or leave. These shorter term objectives included restructures, thinning employee numbers, screwing down wages and a whole lot more actions which are sustainable in the short term (e.g prior to on-selling the company) but do long-term damage. Sadly, the HR team are usually the people who have to execute these policies which does nothing to promote their cause.

It's a complicated world all right.

These things being applied to an "ailing" company and where they applied because of sound business reasons for sound business results, are OK.

There is no need to treat employees badly in the process, that happens mainly because those managing the process are incompetent!

Well, that's been my experience anyway!

[Blackbird]

These things being applied to an "ailing" company and where they applied because of sound business reasons for sound business results, are OK.

There is no need to treat employees badly in the process, that happens mainly because those managing the process are incompetent!

Well, that's been my experience anyway!

Agree on all counts but corporate raiders don't have to think long term so employees at all levels tend to get treated purely as "resources" which someone else so aptly noted.

[Ixion]

Thanks for clarifying what you said Ixion. I have seen what you describe in some HR people I've worked with in the past and if that is what you've seen too then I understand your feelings. A couple of those I've worked with have been real pricks (or whatever the female equivalent of a 'prick' is?)

Twat I suppose. And , yes, the worst are those youngish (20/30 something) chicks .

Especially in larger organisations , which will normally encompass a very wide spread of people , I think that it is inmportant that the HR bods be older people who have had a "previous existence". Not , as too often happens, arts graduates who have gone straight into HR.

[Oakie]

I think that it is inmportant that the HR bods be older people who have had a "previous existence". Not , as too often happens, arts graduates who have gone straight into HR.

Agreed. You can't learn empathy from a textbook.