Examples of bullshit business speak here...

[Mahoney]

"Let's take this offline". Particularly as I now use this one and don't know how to stop...

[Niegs]

Another is adverts for jobs that are written 100% in jargon. Job could be a straightforward business analyst but the lingo makes it look like quantum physics and it puts people off applying and the ones that do, don't understand what it is that they are applying for.

I had one of those for a bloody sports job, of all things! The advert had a lot of generalities so I decided to use some examples from some other positions I'd researched (and one I job-shadowed!), focusing on creating better quality and breadth of service. I brought in some having-been-on-the-ground input as to what I'd do to make things better. At the end of pitching a wide-ranging (and not expensive!) plan to improve rugby, they almost seemed to pooh-pooh it with "What about these other [jargon]?" I had little clue what they were talking about. Hinted for clarity. Didn't get much. Offered some other ideas, still not sure what they were on about. Got a thanks and that was it. Obviously didn't get the gig. They gave it to someone who was somewhat internal who did none of what I was talking about, so I heard, re: community development, focusing mostly on elites.

Not bitter about that, nope.

[Kawazaki]

Advertising a job is such a lottery. Think about it, you need the right person to happen to be looking for a job and to happen to see the job ad when it's a live opportunity. There's so much luck and jeopardy involved for an investment that will likely cost the company £hundreds of thousands over the term of the new employees time with the company. Companies apply more due diligence to the procurement of their office furniture than they do to the employees that will use it.

[Ymx]

“We are getting in to the weeds”
One our chairman likes using.

[Sandstorm]

“Who fucked up?”

[robmatic]

“We are getting in to the weeds”
One our chairman likes using.

Too thick to understand what people are telling him?

[Kawazaki]

“We are getting in to the weeds”
One our chairman likes using.

Too thick to understand what people are telling him?

Chairman aren't there to be the smartest person in the room.

[robmatic]

Advertising a job is such a lottery. Think about it, you need the right person to happen to be looking for a job and to happen to see the job ad when it's a live opportunity. There's so much luck and jeopardy involved for an investment that will likely cost the company £hundreds of thousands over the term of the new employees time with the company. Companies apply more due diligence to the procurement of their office furniture than they do to the employees that will use it.

That's slightly unfair, many companies pay quite decent salaries to HR people so that they have a robust hiring process in place. It probably won't result in the right person being hired, but there's plenty of time, effort and money being spent there.

[Kawazaki]

Advertising a job is such a lottery. Think about it, you need the right person to happen to be looking for a job and to happen to see the job ad when it's a live opportunity. There's so much luck and jeopardy involved for an investment that will likely cost the company £hundreds of thousands over the term of the new employees time with the company. Companies apply more due diligence to the procurement of their office furniture than they do to the employees that will use it.

That's slightly unfair, many companies pay quite decent salaries to HR people so that they have a robust hiring process in place. It probably won't result in the right person being hired, but there's plenty of time, effort and money being spent there.

On the list of reasons why companies employ an HR department, recruitment is quite low down the list. And in my experience, HR staff are generally hopeless at the kind of attraction and approach work required to get the best options on board. You'd be amazed at how high the percentage of staff in many companies is that were not their first choice.

[Sandstorm]

If you need a new person in your team, recruit them yourself. You’re an idiot if you let HR take the lead in that process.

[fishfoodie]

If you need a new person in your team, recruit them yourself. You’re an idiot if you let HR take the lead in that process.

I had a boss who had the people skills of Stalin, & the empathy of a snake; but was pretty astute at hiring people. He'd ask people who's work he liked, to update their Job profile in the Company skills database; & then c&p it ( or merge a couple of them), into a job description online.

I only found out when I was searching for jobs, & found my exact job profile & my words online, in a request

[Ymx]

If you need a new person in your team, recruit them yourself. You’re an idiot if you let HR take the lead in that process.

I had a boss who had the people skills of Stalin, & the empathy of a snake; but was pretty astute at hiring people. He'd ask people who's work he liked, to update their Job profile in the Company skills database; & then c&p it ( or merge a couple of them), into a job description online.

I only found out when I was searching for jobs, & found my exact job profile & my words online, in a request

Or he was looking to replace you.

[fishfoodie]

If you need a new person in your team, recruit them yourself. You’re an idiot if you let HR take the lead in that process.

I had a boss who had the people skills of Stalin, & the empathy of a snake; but was pretty astute at hiring people. He'd ask people who's work he liked, to update their Job profile in the Company skills database; & then c&p it ( or merge a couple of them), into a job description online.

I only found out when I was searching for jobs, & found my exact job profile & my words online, in a request

Or he was looking to replace you.

,

True !

I knew him well enough to know that he wanted more people like me; because even though I didn't like him, & he didn't understand me; we still manged to not kill each other; & just got the work done.

He was the least suitable person I've ever known, to become a people manger; but because of the structures in the company; when you got to a certain grade; you either became a people manager; or stopped getting promotions. It was the single biggest fuckup in a companies makeup I've ever experienced; it meant that they seeded layers of management with the must god awful people; & it totally fucked large parts of the company.

[Kawazaki]

He was the least suitable person I've ever known, to become a people manger; but because of the structures in the company; when you got to a certain grade; you either became a people manager; or stopped getting promotions. It was the single biggest fuckup in a companies makeup I've ever experienced; it meant that they seeded layers of management with the must god awful people; & it totally fucked large parts of the company.

You've basically described what happens in sales. Good salespeople - closers, are worth their weight in gold but companies keen to keep them promote them into roles where they stop doing what they're good at, and worse, they often get bored.

Similar thing happens to teachers. If you're a good and ambitious teacher then you'll do less and less teaching as you go up the grades.

[fishfoodie]

He was the least suitable person I've ever known, to become a people manger; but because of the structures in the company; when you got to a certain grade; you either became a people manager; or stopped getting promotions. It was the single biggest fuckup in a companies makeup I've ever experienced; it meant that they seeded layers of management with the must god awful people; & it totally fucked large parts of the company.

You've basically described what happens in sales. Good salespeople - closers, are worth their weight in gold but companies keen to keep them promote them into roles where they stop doing what they're good at, and worse, they often get bored.

Similar thing happens to teachers. If you're a good and ambitious teacher then you'll do less and less teaching as you go up the grades.

I call it; "The MBA Culture".

[Kawazaki]

I call it; "The MBA Culture".

Quite possibly. The problems often start with the idea that only what can get measured gets managed. The corollary of that of course is seldom considered let alone understood, i.e that what gets mismeasured get mismanaged.

[Paddington Bear]

Managing people is a skill all of it's own and doesn't at all correlate with being good at a particular job, shame companies can't recognise that.

[robmatic]

He was the least suitable person I've ever known, to become a people manger; but because of the structures in the company; when you got to a certain grade; you either became a people manager; or stopped getting promotions. It was the single biggest fuckup in a companies makeup I've ever experienced; it meant that they seeded layers of management with the must god awful people; & it totally fucked large parts of the company.

You've basically described what happens in sales. Good salespeople - closers, are worth their weight in gold but companies keen to keep them promote them into roles where they stop doing what they're good at, and worse, they often get bored.

Similar thing happens to teachers. If you're a good and ambitious teacher then you'll do less and less teaching as you go up the grades.

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

He was the least suitable person I've ever known, to become a people manger; but because of the structures in the company; when you got to a certain grade; you either became a people manager; or stopped getting promotions. It was the single biggest fuckup in a companies makeup I've ever experienced; it meant that they seeded layers of management with the must god awful people; & it totally fucked large parts of the company.

You've basically described what happens in sales. Good salespeople - closers, are worth their weight in gold but companies keen to keep them promote them into roles where they stop doing what they're good at, and worse, they often get bored.

Similar thing happens to teachers. If you're a good and ambitious teacher then you'll do less and less teaching as you go up the grades.

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

[Ymx]

You've basically described what happens in sales. Good salespeople - closers, are worth their weight in gold but companies keen to keep them promote them into roles where they stop doing what they're good at, and worse, they often get bored.

Similar thing happens to teachers. If you're a good and ambitious teacher then you'll do less and less teaching as you go up the grades.

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

That sounds sensible, if possible. Helps preserve the founders vision in what made the thing good in the first place.

Rule 1 keeps the good guys remain doing what they’re good at.

Rule 2 probably goes out the window with c suite drop ins by new ownership. There’s nothing worse than MBA wankers who have zero interest in the company’s services and products, and all they do is squeeze costs, ramp up end client prices, and create business case paralysis on building new things.

[Kawazaki]

You've basically described what happens in sales. Good salespeople - closers, are worth their weight in gold but companies keen to keep them promote them into roles where they stop doing what they're good at, and worse, they often get bored.

Similar thing happens to teachers. If you're a good and ambitious teacher then you'll do less and less teaching as you go up the grades.

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

I quite like what they do in the American education system (though I don't know what the efficacy is). There are two routes for people who want to work in education - the teaching route and the principal route. They don't recruit principals (and junior grades thereof) from the teacher stream. This keeps teachers teaching and makes sure principals have skills that are needed to run schools.

[Kawazaki]

That sounds sensible, if possible. Helps preserve the founders vision in what made the thing good in the first place.

Rule 1 keeps the good guys remain doing what they’re good at.

Rule 2 probably goes out the window with c suite drop ins by new ownership. There’s nothing worse than MBA wankers who have zero interest in the company’s services and products, and all they do is squeeze costs, ramp up end client prices, and create business case paralysis on building new things.

Management consultancies exploit this problem and tear the arse out it mercilessly. Often times they're little more than temp agencies keen to get as many bodies on the client site as possible to get the billable hours up. I know a mate who joined EY's consulting division 25 years ago as a graduate trainee (with a 2:2 from Hull) and literally his first day with them was on secondment to a site team making tea and coffee. They billed him to the client at £800+ per day for 6 months doing that. And repeat, that was 25 years ago.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

I quite like what they do in the American education system (though I don't know what the efficacy is). There are two routes for people who want to work in education - the teaching route and the principal route. They don't recruit principals (and junior grades thereof) from the teacher stream. This keeps teachers teaching and makes sure principals have skills that are needed to run schools.

I didn't know this. Interesting approach. I wonder if it fosters an 'us & them' attitude? Do the principles understand enough of the realities of being in front of a class of kids (rather than just the theory of education)? My partner works in the NHS and she has mentioned that there are some issues with some clinical/medical staff ending up in managerial positions and being awful at it, but also having hospital administration & management staff with no clinical background who are also awful at it precisely because they have no clinical background (so don't understand the challenges etc). Others of this parish would be able to offer a much more accurate assessment of this, I'm sure!

[Ymx]

That sounds sensible, if possible. Helps preserve the founders vision in what made the thing good in the first place.

Rule 1 keeps the good guys remain doing what they’re good at.

Rule 2 probably goes out the window with c suite drop ins by new ownership. There’s nothing worse than MBA wankers who have zero interest in the company’s services and products, and all they do is squeeze costs, ramp up end client prices, and create business case paralysis on building new things.

Management consultancies exploit this problem and tear the arse out it mercilessly. Often times they're little more than temp agencies keen to get as many bodies on the client site as possible to get the billable hours up. I know a mate who joined EY's consulting division 25 years ago as a graduate trainee (with a 2:2 from Hull) and literally his first day with them was on secondment to a site team making tea and coffee. They billed him to the client at £800+ per day for 6 months doing that. And repeat, that was 25 years ago.

Yes, those guys are absolute parasites. And they often bring more an more of them in/other referred experts.

[Kawazaki]

I didn't know this. Interesting approach. I wonder if it fosters an 'us & them' attitude? Do the principles understand enough of the realities of being in front of a class of kids (rather than just the theory of education)? My partner works in the NHS and she has mentioned that there are some issues with some clinical/medical staff ending up in managerial positions and being awful at it, but also having hospital administration & management staff with no clinical background who are also awful at it precisely because they have no clinical background (so don't understand the challenges etc). Others of this parish would be able to offer a much more accurate assessment of this, I'm sure!

I don't know the finer details but I'd assume that there would still be teachers involved in some management meetings with feedback and clear communication channels. Teaching is interesting as teachers do need good organisational and communication skills but they need them with children and/or young adults.

[inactionman]

You've basically described what happens in sales. Good salespeople - closers, are worth their weight in gold but companies keen to keep them promote them into roles where they stop doing what they're good at, and worse, they often get bored.

Similar thing happens to teachers. If you're a good and ambitious teacher then you'll do less and less teaching as you go up the grades.

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

Interesting approach.

I left UK engineering in part because of a lack of (1) - the out-of-uni roles tend to be very dull and monotonous, and the advanced roles very management-focused, there's only a few spaces for the technical specialists in any reasonably well paid and autonomous role. My ex-flat mate is a key technical specialist in Airbus (around composites) and he's struck that he's plateaued and any further progression will take him away from the engineering. His technical expertise is so specific he's worried about mobility, so he's a bit hemmed in.

For point (2), many Japanese companies had an approach of putting all new external management/director-level hires onto the manufacturing lines for a period, just so they had at least some modicum of an understanding of what goes on. I'd worry they'd only pick up enough to be dangerous, but better that than blissful ignorance.

One aspect that always worried me was the approach of taking people from other sectors which are seen to be more effective in some aspect and hoping the 'magic dust' will sprinkle across your organisation. As an example, MOD brought in some retail, auto supply chain and banking people into the logistics function (indirectly in some cases) to try to drive efficiencies and the improve the admittedly piss-poor performance. The problem is, it's a notably different world and the methods that served these people well in one space don't always work in another - and they also lack that background context which helped them to make decisions in their native industries. There's a reason getting t-shirts and jeans into high street stores is easier than getting battle tanks into combat zones, and much of retail is about influencing behaviour (e.g. through sales) which doesn't work in a military context. The culture issues were a separate concern, although most people I worked with appeared grown-up enough to get round this, the real bone of contention was for an experienced MOD staffer or civil servant having their expertise challenged and defeated by both senior leadership and the new arrivals.

[Uncle fester]

You've basically described what happens in sales. Good salespeople - closers, are worth their weight in gold but companies keen to keep them promote them into roles where they stop doing what they're good at, and worse, they often get bored.

Similar thing happens to teachers. If you're a good and ambitious teacher then you'll do less and less teaching as you go up the grades.

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

I'm in the middle of this right now. Enjoy the technical stuff a lot more than the management aspect but not going further into management will be severely career-limiting.
Kind of at the point of wanting to get away from engineering altogether.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

Interesting approach.

I left UK engineering in part because of a lack of (1) - the out-of-uni roles tend to be very dull and monotonous, and the advanced roles very management-focused, there's only a few spaces for the technical specialists in any reasonably well paid and autonomous role. My ex-flat mate is a key technical specialist in Airbus (around composites) and he's struck that he's plateaued and any further progression will take him away from the engineering. His technical expertise is so specific he's worried about mobility, so he's a bit hemmed in.

For point (2), many Japanese companies had an approach of putting all new external management/director-level hires onto the manufacturing lines for a period, just so they had at least some modicum of an understanding of what goes on. I'd worry they'd only pick up enough to be dangerous, but better that than blissful ignorance.

One aspect that always worried me was the approach of taking people from other sectors which are seen to be more effective in some aspect and hoping the 'magic dust' will sprinkle across your organisation. As an example, MOD brought in some retail, auto supply chain and banking people into the logistics function (indirectly in some cases) to try to drive efficiencies and the improve the admittedly piss-poor performance. The problem is, it's a notably different world and the methods that served these people well in one space don't always work in another - and they also lack that background context which helped them to make decisions in their native industries. There's a reason getting t-shirts and jeans into high street stores is easier than getting battle tanks into combat zones, and much of retail is about influencing behaviour (e.g. through sales) which doesn't work in a military context. The culture issues were a separate concern, although most people I worked with appeared grown-up enough to get round this, the real bone of contention was for an experienced MOD staffer or civil servant having their expertise challenged and defeated by both senior leadership and the new arrivals.

The lack of credibility with your new workforce when transferring to a new industry sector can be a big barrier to being effective. I recall thinking, when a new director was brought in from P&G, "why does he think his experience in selling feminine hygiene products is going to be relevant here?" And that was just moving from one FMCG company to another. (He actually turned out to be pretty good, but it took a while.) I can only imagine it would be 100 times worse in the defence industry.

[Kawazaki]

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

Interesting approach.

I left UK engineering in part because of a lack of (1) - the out-of-uni roles tend to be very dull and monotonous, and the advanced roles very management-focused, there's only a few spaces for the technical specialists in any reasonably well paid and autonomous role. My ex-flat mate is a key technical specialist in Airbus (around composites) and he's struck that he's plateaued and any further progression will take him away from the engineering. His technical expertise is so specific he's worried about mobility, so he's a bit hemmed in.

For point (2), many Japanese companies had an approach of putting all new external management/director-level hires onto the manufacturing lines for a period, just so they had at least some modicum of an understanding of what goes on. I'd worry they'd only pick up enough to be dangerous, but better that than blissful ignorance.

One aspect that always worried me was the approach of taking people from other sectors which are seen to be more effective in some aspect and hoping the 'magic dust' will sprinkle across your organisation. As an example, MOD brought in some retail, auto supply chain and banking people into the logistics function (indirectly in some cases) to try to drive efficiencies and the improve the admittedly piss-poor performance. The problem is, it's a notably different world and the methods that served these people well in one space don't always work in another - and they also lack that background context which helped them to make decisions in their native industries. There's a reason getting t-shirts and jeans into high street stores is easier than getting battle tanks into combat zones, and much of retail is about influencing behaviour (e.g. through sales) which doesn't work in a military context. The culture issues were a separate concern, although most people I worked with appeared grown-up enough to get round this, the real bone of contention was for an experienced MOD staffer or civil servant having their expertise challenged and defeated by both senior leadership and the new arrivals.

The lack of credibility with your new workforce when transferring to a new industry sector can be a big barrier to being effective. I recall thinking, when a new director was brought in from P&G, "why does he think his experience in selling feminine hygiene products is going to be relevant here?" And that was just moving from one FMCG company to another. (He actually turned out to be pretty good, but it took a while.) I can only imagine it would be 100 times worse in the defence industry.

This is human nature unfortunately. A great example of this is the Harrison Lesser watch, invented to help ships navigate by knowing their longitude. He was a watchmaker but the leading people working on the longitude problem were all astronomists. They simply didn't believe him at first, knocked him back, discredited him and withheld monies owed to him.

Smart people forget that a good guess or a lucky accident that stands up to empirical observation is still science.

[inactionman]

I think this is pretty universal, where people who have good skills or technical knowledge get promoted despite being unsuitable for managing people (or they don't get any training in managing people).

I worked in a company where this was recognised as a problem so they went out of their way to bring in managers from elsewhere in the company or external hires. Ended up having managers who were good at doing appraisals and having meetings but had no clue what was actually going on with their teams.

I used to work for a very big American oil company, and they recognised both of these problems. Their solutions were:
1. to have a career path for engineering specialists, meaning they could continue to get promoted & not bored, but didn't have to manage anyone (a win for them and also for anyone who might have ended up being managed by them)
2. only promote to managerial positions from within, meaning they had an understanding of business and the culture and - this one was more problematic as it meant they never brought in new ideas and changing the culture was almost impossible. It was also only possible because they were massive.

I've not worked for them for 20 years now, and I'm not sure they strictly adhere to rule 2 anymore. They still do the technical specialists career path though.

I'm in the middle of this right now. Enjoy the technical stuff a lot more than the management aspect but not going further into management will be severely career-limiting.
Kind of at the point of wanting to get away from engineering altogether.

I'm in enterprise arch (glorified IT, frankly) and really miss engineering. I think that's partly me being a bit 'grass greener' but it's actually something I am truly interested in - I throw all my IT institute magazines straight in bin but I'll spend happy days at Bovington looking at tanks or at East Fortune admiring aircraft.

[sorCrer]

"I'll get back to you on that" for something it is your job to know, useless cunt. It's a classic procrastination tactic and you never get a response anyway.

If I hear 'touch base' my already red face goes purple and I have trouble breathing.

[bok_viking]

Advertising a job is such a lottery. Think about it, you need the right person to happen to be looking for a job and to happen to see the job ad when it's a live opportunity. There's so much luck and jeopardy involved for an investment that will likely cost the company £hundreds of thousands over the term of the new employees time with the company. Companies apply more due diligence to the procurement of their office furniture than they do to the employees that will use it.

That's slightly unfair, many companies pay quite decent salaries to HR people so that they have a robust hiring process in place. It probably won't result in the right person being hired, but there's plenty of time, effort and money being spent there.

On the list of reasons why companies employ an HR department, recruitment is quite low down the list. And in my experience, HR staff are generally hopeless at the kind of attraction and approach work required to get the best options on board. You'd be amazed at how high the percentage of staff in many companies is that were not their first choice.

Some of the bigger companies do have a very detailed recruitment process though that HR needs to follow. I used to work at the Maersk Headquarters in Copenhagen and when we applied for a job there you went through a process that could take a couple of weeks. They would invite you for a first "interview" which was not much of an interview, it was basically doing a series of written tests related to aptitude and personality and then you had a short chat with one of the HR people. If you get past this and you fall within the parameters of the type of person they are looking for, they would invite you for a 2nd interview where you write another test related to skills and then have a proper interview with HR. If you pass this 2nd meeting, then you get invited for a 3rd interview where you get interviewed by the manager that requires a position filled in his department.
They definitely looked for a specific type of person to work at the HQ. I worked for a few companies over the years, but their recruitment strategy was the most rigorous to get through.

[bok_viking]

That's slightly unfair, many companies pay quite decent salaries to HR people so that they have a robust hiring process in place. It probably won't result in the right person being hired, but there's plenty of time, effort and money being spent there.

On the list of reasons why companies employ an HR department, recruitment is quite low down the list. And in my experience, HR staff are generally hopeless at the kind of attraction and approach work required to get the best options on board. You'd be amazed at how high the percentage of staff in many companies is that were not their first choice.

Some of the bigger companies do have a very detailed recruitment process though that HR needs to follow. I used to work at the Maersk Headquarters in Copenhagen and when we applied for a job there you went through a process that could take a couple of weeks. They would invite you for a first "interview" which was not much of an interview, it was basically doing a series of written tests related to aptitude and personality and then you had a short chat with one of the HR people. If you get past this and you fall within the parameters of the type of person they are looking for, they would invite you for a 2nd interview where you write another test related to skills and then have a proper interview with HR. If you pass this 2nd meeting, then you get invited for a 3rd interview where you get interviewed by the manager that requires a position filled in his department.
They definitely looked for a specific type of person to work at the HQ. I worked for a few companies over the years, but their recruitment strategy was the most rigorous to get through. One thing i must say they were good at was giving people opportunities that might not have a university degree but were skillful enough to do a job as well or better than a graduate. We had a few guys with us that never went to varsity but impressed with the skills tests and interviews and ended up getting the job. I thing these days companies are so focused on that piece of paper as the be all, end all that they miss out of some very good candidates that for whatever reason never could go to university. There are so many jobs around that a company requires a degree for but in actual fact can be done well without the need to go to university.

[Kawazaki]

Some of the bigger companies do have a very detailed recruitment process though that HR needs to follow. I used to work at the Maersk Headquarters in Copenhagen and when we applied for a job there you went through a process that could take a couple of weeks. They would invite you for a first "interview" which was not much of an interview, it was basically doing a series of written tests related to aptitude and personality and then you had a short chat with one of the HR people. If you get past this and you fall within the parameters of the type of person they are looking for, they would invite you for a 2nd interview where you write another test related to skills and then have a proper interview with HR. If you pass this 2nd meeting, then you get invited for a 3rd interview where you get interviewed by the manager that requires a position filled in his department.
They definitely looked for a specific type of person to work at the HQ. I worked for a few companies over the years, but their recruitment strategy was the most rigorous to get through.

This exactly proves my point. HR are terrible, often worse than terrible at attraction and approach work.

[Niegs]

Some of the bigger companies do have a very detailed recruitment process though that HR needs to follow. I used to work at the Maersk Headquarters in Copenhagen and when we applied for a job there you went through a process that could take a couple of weeks. They would invite you for a first "interview" which was not much of an interview, it was basically doing a series of written tests related to aptitude and personality and then you had a short chat with one of the HR people. If you get past this and you fall within the parameters of the type of person they are looking for, they would invite you for a 2nd interview where you write another test related to skills and then have a proper interview with HR. If you pass this 2nd meeting, then you get invited for a 3rd interview where you get interviewed by the manager that requires a position filled in his department.
They definitely looked for a specific type of person to work at the HQ. I worked for a few companies over the years, but their recruitment strategy was the most rigorous to get through.

This exactly proves my point. HR are terrible, often worse than terrible at attraction and approach work.

This is like the Canadian gov't, too. If I remember correctly, I was invited to do the aptitude tests in late Feb, scheduled for early-March. I'd completely forgotten that I'd applied for the job but then remembered it was posted back in November. Didn't hear anything then so had forgot about it. Did the tests, didn't do great, but by the end of March was invited to an online interview. It was shorter than expected. Got a response a few days later saying that I was 'successful' and that I'd be included in the pool for hiring which should take place around October. A whole friggin' year to hire an entry-level librarian?!


The other one I 'loved' was Canada Post. When between jobs, I thought I'd actually enjoy being a letter carrier. Mostly, they require you to start as a casual and go through months of that, which right there must cut out some people. But I had nothing going for me, so thought I'd give it a shot. First, they get you to do online aptitude tests which include some practically impossible sorting and memory games. I think I spent too long trying to complete some of them accurately while the over-all time (an hour, I think) ran out and I missed one or two of the final tests (out of eight, iirc). I didn't make the next round as they indicated that I 'failed' the aptitude tests.

The one I'm still bitter over was looking at 25 envelopes that had four panels, each with one or more coloured red or blue (or none at all coloured). I recall getting something like 2-3 minutes to study them, then it sends you to a new page where they're randomized and are given something insane like 30 seconds to re-arrange them in the order you were given! Another showed you an unfolded box with one or more sections coloured, then asked you, out of several different assembled boxes, which it was. The more practical things, like spotting errors in addresses and the (fun!) mail truck driving simulator I nailed, however.

[mat the expat]

The concern across the IT landscape about total wfh is that if there's no benefit to co-location at all then most jobs upon replacement can be done by people looking for significantly lower salaries.

I see it more like the situation I was in when I first started in IT - loads of older folks with Gold-plated (TUPE) Pensions, etc who did fuck all work, just came in for coffee and smokes.

I'm happy that the industry is being shaken up - I'm not the old dude in it for the coffee

Businesses will not abandon the head offices - they will just be smaller. As for COLO - everything I've ever supported bar local LAN/WAPs has been offsite since 2012.

[mat the expat]

I call it; "The MBA Culture".

Quite possibly. The problems often start with the idea that only what can get measured gets managed. The corollary of that of course is seldom considered let alone understood, i.e that what gets mismeasured get mismanaged.

Which ironically, is why there is a feedback loop that prevents change - who does the measuring?

[mat the expat]

Likewise Agile. Largely used as an excuse to cut corners and not keep records whilst sounding exciting.

So much this, basically invented by developers who hate doing documentation and plans, i have yet to encounter an agile project that has delivered on spec and to time and budget.

As an Infrastructure PM, I have been seconded to a few Agile projects.

It was ok for a few months but always reminds me of the clockmaker scene in Schindler's List - imagine a whole career of Sprints?

Fuck that!

[Tichtheid]

Likewise Agile. Largely used as an excuse to cut corners and not keep records whilst sounding exciting.

So much this, basically invented by developers who hate doing documentation and plans, i have yet to encounter an agile project that has delivered on spec and to time and budget.

As an Infrastructure PM, I have been seconded to a few Agile projects.

It was ok for a few months but always reminds me of the clockmaker scene in Schindler's List - imagine a whole career of Sprints?

Fuck that!

This is interesting, my wife is a fan of Agile working, she describes it as improvement in real time, or some such - it's half past 12 on a Friday night and drink has been taken, so I might not be absolutely accurate here, but the benefits from her point of view is that iterations are put out in the knowledge that it's not the finished product but you get there quicker and more accurately with Agile, as opposed to having nothing for 18 months and then have to debug for another six months to a year after implementation.

Shoot the Kronenbourg here, not the messenger

[Dismal Pillock]

I have an absolute loathing for the word "synergy", to the extent that if someone sends a meeting request to explore "synergies" I'll normally ignore it.