Comments on: If there was a correlation with HR and improved outcomes it would be rational for leaders to invest more

By: T. Beholder

T. Beholder — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 18:04:47 +0000

Seriously, do these people live in ?? century in their heads, or something?

Until I started working in the Cabinet Office in 2020 I hadn’t paid much attention to human resources (HR). I had rolled my eyes at more time wasted circumventing another rigid recruitment policy, which, although introduced to make things better, was in fact making them worse. I assumed HR was unavoidable in large organisations, and mostly there to help.

(With painfully fake British accent): “Say, Mr. Willkie, what this Georgian fellow was doing after he was a bank robber and before he was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? Cadres, you say? How boring…”

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 12:44:27 +0000

In America HR is D party graft, with D patronage hires acting as D party commissars backed by mischievous suits in D party courts.

In England HR is Labour…

By: Bomag

Bomag — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 08:11:48 +0000

Credit the Soviets with being upfront and appointing openly political minders to every organization to muck things up in transparent fashion, rather than couching it in terms of self-help.

Also maps to Moldbug’s modern governance = secular religion: the populace is a flawed entity, needing to tithe and follow the ever changing and refined rules of the modern priesthood.

By: VXXC

VXXC — Tue, 31 Dec 2024 20:30:06 +0000

HR in America is the government bureaucracy the business pays for… and so does everyone else. HR is the Compliance Police. Nothing to do with profit, or efficiency, or product. HR are political operatives; politics is power.