Discussion
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/bolt-ceo-fir...
Interesting. I would apply this to HR in every organisation, what is their purpose?
Interesting. I would apply this to HR in every organisation, what is their purpose?
Tom8 said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/bolt-ceo-fir...
Interesting. I would apply this to HR in every organisation, what is their purpose?
To protect the company.Interesting. I would apply this to HR in every organisation, what is their purpose?
unzippy said:
Tom8 said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/bolt-ceo-fir...
Interesting. I would apply this to HR in every organisation, what is their purpose?
To protect the company.Interesting. I would apply this to HR in every organisation, what is their purpose?
My wife is a CPO and sees her job as much more than that. It's her who sits in board meetings fighting to get improvements and changes agreed to benefit the employees.
People don't see that though, and that article is very much half a story. It's like saying we've stopped all crime, by sacking every Police officer in the country.
shtu said:
It's a return to having a "Personnel" department, that deals with the administrative side of employees.
HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
Most companies would benefit enormously from an HR department that WASN'T just a personnel department. HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
For all the talk of "leadership", most middle managers haven't received any proper guidance in how to manage people and they are therefore also almost completely incapable of managing fellow man-managers. So you end up with tiers of managers who are not judged or rewarded on the execution of one of their most fundamental responsibilities.
This is where an effective HR department is dynamite. They need to be like the Stasi, monitoring and overseeing any manager who has direct reports to ensure that they are being effective and they need to be included in all managerial promotion and in all strategic decisions for the business.
Of all the firms I've worked for over the years, only one of them had an HR department that functioned this way and they had a tremendously positive impact on productivity.
Zetec-S said:
He strikes me as another self-entitled billionaire executive who threw his toys out the pram because he didn't like the answers he was given.
Exactly. The shift back to 'startup mode' is to get back to winging it without rules or law getting in the way.Though given the stock has collapsed by >95% he probably scrapes by as a mere millionaire now.
Tom8 said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/bolt-ceo-fir...
Interesting. I would apply this to HR in every organisation, what is their purpose?
At a guess they were putting terrible ideas like we can't discriminate and might want to educate staff etc to avoid Tribunal claims (well, litigation etc) and that perhaps was a problem that "does not exist" until a claim arrives at least.....Interesting. I would apply this to HR in every organisation, what is their purpose?
shtu said:
It's a return to having a "Personnel" department, that deals with the administrative side of employees.
HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
This has been my experience too - HR, particularly in large corporates, are great at starting fires that only they know how to put out. Wanting to have a seat on the board is also fairly typical. HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
Zetec-S said:
He strikes me as another self-entitled billionaire executive who threw his toys out the pram because he didn't like the answers he was given.
Indeed, I had extensive and detailed discussions with one a few years ago as to why putting staff on call for 168 hours a week was a bit of a problem.........bergclimber34 said:
As a observer and employee I have found personnel largely pointless, they recruit based on data and software not people, they are biased, and in work they are often ruthless, nasty people, who do create certain issues out of nothing
When it comes to recruitment the responsibility (should) lie with the dept/manager, HR are there to guide the process, not make the decision.As with any dept within an organisation, some are good and some are useless.
As an ex employment lawyer and now in-house lawyer, HR imho have a point. In reality he has kept the department, but renamed it. Poorly run HR departments can cause more problems than they solve, as indeed can most functions, however to rid your company of the function would be the wrong solution to me. It speaks more of the CEO than anything.
NDA said:
shtu said:
It's a return to having a "Personnel" department, that deals with the administrative side of employees.
HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
This has been my experience too - HR, particularly in large corporates, are great at starting fires that only they know how to put out. Wanting to have a seat on the board is also fairly typical. HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
MustangGT said:
NDA said:
shtu said:
It's a return to having a "Personnel" department, that deals with the administrative side of employees.
HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
This has been my experience too - HR, particularly in large corporates, are great at starting fires that only they know how to put out. Wanting to have a seat on the board is also fairly typical. HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
MustangGT said:
Given the enormous amount of employment legislation, with many recent changes, and the increase in vexatious employee claims HR (and SHEQ) is absolutely required nowadays.
I'd be interested to know how many of these "problems that don't exist", in the absence of HR, would arrive at an employment tribunal etc and be found to, in fact, very much exist.So the CEO of Bolt - which was previosuly valued at aroun 11bn and currently valued at less than 1bn think HR is the problem.
Maybe he doesn't own a mirror ?
I guess in his quest to take them 'back to start up mode' he means the two of the founders back in his mums basement. In which case he is 100% correct he doesn't need an HR team.
NDA said:
MustangGT said:
NDA said:
shtu said:
It's a return to having a "Personnel" department, that deals with the administrative side of employees.
HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
This has been my experience too - HR, particularly in large corporates, are great at starting fires that only they know how to put out. Wanting to have a seat on the board is also fairly typical. HR has been guilty of some massive over-reach, angling to be the part that runs the entire business rather than being a non-core function.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff