What do you think (maybe according to your own experience) are the main rhetorics and realities involved in Human Resource Management / managing people.
For example I find many organisations pay a lot of lip service to performance appraisals and the reality always is its just a piece of paper work/excercise! - something that they just have to do now and again!
Bearing in mind good peformance is often linked to the bottom line (e.g. profits) then why are'nt organisations taking peformance apprisals seriously!
For example I find many organisations pay a lot of lip service to performance appraisals and the reality always is its just a piece of paper work/excercise! - something that they just have to do now and again!
Bearing in mind good peformance is often linked to the bottom line (e.g. profits) then why are'nt organisations taking peformance apprisals seriously!
-
Re: Rhetorics and realities?
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 5:23 PM
"Bearing in mind good performance is often linked to the bottom line (e.g. profits) then why aren't organisations taking performance appraisals seriously?"
Because there's very little relationship between the "metrics" and economic/ cultural reality. For example-- two candidates: one has glowing "metrics" in their "progress reports," the other has excellent relationships in the most productive client/ customer base. Q: which one gets the position? A: the one with the sexy bum!
Over the years, we have instinctively learned how to cook the "metrics" to reinforce decisions we've already made anyway... usually based on critical business issues like hairstyle or shoes. Once we have our documentation in place, we can outsource the actual work to contractors and then go to a meeting and eat cookies!
Or, as they used to say in the (former) Soviet Union: "as long as the bosses pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work."
-
-
Re: Rhetorics and realities?
Tue, May 15, 2007 - 12:01 PMI agree with what you are saying to an extent however its not always possible for all organisations to outsource work. I also think its quite sad that some people get employed based on physical attractiveness! I remember someone saying once, that the people who do most well in life, are the good looking ones - Can that be really true? Any studies done around this? As for the the former soviet union quote, well! what can i say! lol -
-
Re: Rhetorics and realities?
Tue, May 15, 2007 - 1:28 PMMany studies have been done on "lookism."
www.personneltoday.com/Articl...ld.html
Usually the urge to "outsource" is more pronounced in larger more "mature" organizations with top-heavy bureaucratic structures. I must say, when the departments went from "personnel" to "human resources," it kinda creeped me out. Now that it has added "management," it definitely creeps me out.
I worked for a large company once that went on a "diversity" kick... in theory- a really good idea. What happened was... after a few years, they had more female corporate drones... more black, hispanic and asian corporate drones... etc. sure, it LOOKED different... but it wasn't. -
-
Re: Rhetorics and realities?
Wed, May 16, 2007 - 6:04 AMI am a personnel director and trying eliminate 'lookism' in my organisation. The content is far more important!!! trust me. However recruitment based on looks may work in client facing roles even then one needs to be competent at what they do! -
-
Re: Rhetorics and realities?
Wed, May 16, 2007 - 8:29 AMPersonnel Director... much better! It sounds more like conducting a choir than herding cattle!
Good example here of the conflicts between Rhetorics and Realities... and in our "postmodern paradigm," we have been conditioned to think we can change the "reality" by changing the "rhetoric." Partially true, but only if we understand the "reality" we are trying to change. This involves the good ol "paradigm shift" (which has become a cliche' as well).
Example: most business is "profit oriented." Nothing wrong with that, until the focus becomes so exclusive that it undermines product and people... which usually bolluxes up the "profit," leaving a lot of head-scratching... which falls back eventually on "cost-cutting." Which leads to more miserable people making a crappy product... not so hard to figure out... until it gets camouflaged in a bunch of bullshit rhetoric like "creating value," which- translated into plain English- means "make the stock price go up," which- parsed into realspeak means, "get upper-level management more percs and bonuses."
Fortunately, nobody who actually makes the product or service is fooled by the bullshit. Unfortunately, "upper-level management" thinks they are. I haven't yet figured out whether ULM actually "believes" it or not... but evidence suggests they actually DO through some strange process of "internalization." Here's a good working metaphor: the shoe factory.
The shoe factory is not there to "create customer, partner and shareholder value." It's not there to "provide jobs for the community." It's there to make fookin SHOES. Now somewhere... within the guts of the organization... there exist folk who were cobblers in an earlier day... somebody who actually knows something about making shoes. Now, there's the DESIGN of shoes... and the MANUFACTURE of shoes. What's a "good" shoe? And once we've decided that... how can we make copies of them as quickly and cheaply as possible? Then there's SELLING the shoes. That's where I used to work... "marketing." Marketing cannot be a separate kingdom from Design or Manufacture.
I learned the most by working closely with the designers... and NOT by trying to "influence" them about "what people will buy." That's the WORST thing a "marketer" can possibly do... because the truth is, we don't KNOW. We can tell them what people are buying today... or yesterday... but good designers already know that anyway.
The good news is... if everybody's really into shoes... and they design and make a good shoe... and they feel confident about doing it again tomorrow... they'll keep making good shoes. Start mucking that up with "policies and procedures" without explaining the relationship to a good shoe... and the whole thing becomes a pig's arse.
-
-
-
-