I didn't see what Harris said, not that it matters. As to the dig at HR managers, it made me wonder where Enjeti used to work. Now, he did say "corporate" HR, and my experience was all with the Federal government, so maybe he had a different experience, but the example he gave of a disgruntled employee complaining and the HR director not addressing the issue seriously is totally contrary to the way we operated.
Government human resources managers were all about making sure the universe of government rules and regulations was obeyed. As you might imagine, we had rules for everything and required procedures for hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, attendance, performance, and workplace conduct. Allegations of violation were always investigated and responded to in writing. The disgruntled employee had the right to appeal an unfavorable decision and, in serious cases, could have a hearing before a neutral third-party adjudicator (administrative judge or arbitrator).
Now, back in my time, government HR was premised on equality, not equity. Treating people without regard to race, sex, national origin, etc., was the guiding principle. Sure, EEO would send out stats about the underrepresentation of race/gender in the workforce, but if you selected a less qualified individual on that basis and there was a complaint, the hire would not stand, or some other form of restoration would be applied. It really wasn't a bad system, despite all the bureaucracy involved. I'm not sure how much this new woke equity bullshit has changed things, but when I was in HR, merit is what mattered most.
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.
I didn't see what Harris said, not that it matters. As to the dig at HR managers, it made me wonder where Enjeti used to work. Now, he did say "corporate" HR, and my experience was all with the Federal government, so maybe he had a different experience, but the example he gave of a disgruntled employee complaining and the HR director not addressing the issue seriously is totally contrary to the way we operated.
ReplyDeleteGovernment human resources managers were all about making sure the universe of government rules and regulations was obeyed. As you might imagine, we had rules for everything and required procedures for hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, attendance, performance, and workplace conduct. Allegations of violation were always investigated and responded to in writing. The disgruntled employee had the right to appeal an unfavorable decision and, in serious cases, could have a hearing before a neutral third-party adjudicator (administrative judge or arbitrator).
Now, back in my time, government HR was premised on equality, not equity. Treating people without regard to race, sex, national origin, etc., was the guiding principle. Sure, EEO would send out stats about the underrepresentation of race/gender in the workforce, but if you selected a less qualified individual on that basis and there was a complaint, the hire would not stand, or some other form of restoration would be applied. It really wasn't a bad system, despite all the bureaucracy involved. I'm not sure how much this new woke equity bullshit has changed things, but when I was in HR, merit is what mattered most.