Thursday, January 10, 2013

Dating the 30 Something HR Lady

My genuine loathing for HR is no secret.  I believe HR is the single largest non-public sector threat to the private sector and thus, America.  I also believe the vast majority of HR "professionals" are power hungry, sexist, bigoted and incompetent.  I believe HR was created as an affirmative action program for women (this is starting to sound like the Nicene Creed).  And I believe because of HR's power trip, it has become an agent of compliance and ego-stroking, not performance.  This has resulted in an echo chamber that employs only the most bland, unimaginative, but ass-kissing employees, resulting in compliance now, but condemning employers to a Black Swan event in the future.

Yes, I hate HR.

But one of the more interesting observations I had a while ago was how HR (which is predominantly headed up by 20-50 something women) is starting to take on personal traits of said women, namely, dating. The questions asked by women in HR are identical to dating questions.  This is not necessarily a bad thing in that you do want a personal fit as well as a professional fit, but I ask a simple question:

How successful are these HR ladies in their loves lives?

Miserable I presume based on the now-approaching-score of HR women I've known (I've also known most of them to have BIG financial troubles in addition to their romantic troubles).  But that's my point.  If they're so bad at screening for candidates in their romantic lives, how good are they plying the same screening techniques for candidates in their professional lives?

Lousy of course.  But don't let that stop them.  No, we have to still ask dating questions.

In the end this will all burst like all Black Swan event bubbles do.  Having a myopic view, presuming your premises are always correct and you know what you're doing, will result in an inbreeding amongst your employees and corporate culture.  Innovators, leaders, revolutionaries, creators and non-conformists will never be allowed in, and if they are, they will be immediately identified by the HR-white-blood cells of the corporate being and immediately dealt with and fired.  Without these "free radicals" your entity will lose vision and purpose.  It will also lose the ability to identify any threats as well as opportunities that will destroy/benefit your company.  You will stagnate and it's only a matter of time before one of those particularly entrepreneurial free radicals gets some financing and either replaces or obsoletes your firm.

But hey, by all means, you keep asking the top graduate from MIT

"Where he sees himself in 5 years."

"What's his favorite movie and why?"

"If you could be an animal, which one would it be and why?"

I'm sure it prove just as successful as your dating life.

hat tip


Eric S. Mueller said...

Between your blog and my own experiences, I'm convinced HR is a make-work program for women. Especially women who cannnot execute a task as simple as heating noodles.

Real Life Office Space said...

The issue is in part due to the fear of risk / responsibility that is inherent in holding a leadership position.

The good CEO / Leader knows that this is part of the job and accepts it for what it is. Hiring a new employee is always a risk, but it takes judgement to figure out what is an acceptable risk and what isn't.

A poor CEO / Leader shuffles this responsibility off on someone else whose job it is to "proof" candidates based on a variety of quantitative and qualitative data. However, as the leader in such as situation is already half asleep at the wheel. They don't take the time to figure out the correct balance between these qualitative / quantitative inquiries for new candidates.

As such you end up with an HR Lead in charge of their own personal fiefdom (department) that they can micromanage to their heart's content. As long as EEOC complaints aren't hitting the CEO's desk, he's usually never the wiser. And besides, what young white male is going to successfully file an EEOC complaint against an HR department run by a double minority?

No one.

The Conservative Sociologist said...

I started dating this one guy when I was 20. He was 30 back then, had already married twice (and divorced twice), had one 5 year old child, and ended his relationships essentially by moving onto the next best thing. I was the only one to have broken up with him, haha.

Anyway, after we broke up, he started dating the HR girl where he worked. They're now married. She obviously was gifted at identifying red flags.

Anonymous said...

"If you could be an animal, which one would it be and why?""

Orca - I am the ultimate predator, my close friends and family are also Orca, we operate as a gang.

Great White Sharks fear us.

Seals tremble at the sight of a single fin.

Salmon schools flee before us.

Whales lament our existence as we eat their children.

Dolphins have songs of us as Nemesis

We have no mercy, no conscience.

And we're both black and White simultaneously.

So, do I get the job, or what?

Thwomp said...

I have recently started applying for jobs in a new career path and been through an interview process. The experience leads me to believe that the quality of the HR staff could represent the health of not just the company but the industry as well. In my case the HR recruiters were each veterans of their technical segments in the company.

Moreso, I have been given the impression that any career HR personnel in this field really only serve to protect the company legally in case of a dispute with an employee.

These are just my initial observations.

LordSomber said...

"If you could be an animal, which one would it be and why?"

Probably a human, because no other animal could do the job. But my second choice would have to be a rabid wolf, or whatever animal could rip out HR lady's throat the quickest.

daniel_ream said...

Hey, Thwomp, that's *always* been the point of HR as a department. Benefits administration is a part-time job for one person/hundred employees, and hiring is always better done by the department managers.

Martel said...

This is a reflection of the feminine emphasis on relationships as opposed to the masculine emphasis on performance. Guys don't go to work for friends, and if somebody performs well, we don't give a damn if we like them or not.

In schools they're training kids for a relational focus at work, hence the emphasis on "cooperative learning". You can be the smartest kid in class, but that doesn't matter if you're not able to pull the weight of the dumbasses in your group.

Socialism isn't just an economic system, it's a culture.

Anonymous said...

My wife worked for about ten years at workers comp .... a quasi provincial government operation funded by the private sector workers to deal with work place injuries .... It is largely run by the women you are describing and most of them are divorced with no hope of finding a replacement man.

They make huge money by the by ... 80 to 90K a year plus big bennies. Any available men their age are looking for chicks who are younger and might I say ... thinner. For good measure, less needy, whiny and self centered ... if that is even possible yo find nowadays. May substitute bimbo if needed.

Liberal governments developed this sort of work place in their pursuit if a rich cache of women voters. In short, they sold out our society and the family to get themselves votes.

Canada is full of that sort of thing. We are way down the road from you folks, but you are passing us by now .... good luck. it is the women themselves who will suffer for this delusion.

SM777 said...

Mr. Clarey,

A quick question. Seriously, do corporate job interviewers actually ask about favorite movies and what type of animal an applicant would wish to be?

I have had the same job since 1996 (IT) so I am not aware of how much the situation has changed.

I was just wondering.............

taterearl said...

"Where he sees himself in 5 years."

I believe Mitch Hedberg had the best answer to this.

Celebrating the 5 year anniversary of you asking me this question.

Anonymous said...

I'd just like it explained how when a professor of mine talked to a senior manager at a Big Four that I interviewed with he said something like "That kid's gonna be my best hire this year, guaranteed" and yet when I'd interview with HR ladies it wouldn't even by 24 hours before I'd get rejection notices. Just saying...

Anonymous said...

Favorite movie?
"Let's see, Ass Masters IV was pretty good....Debbie Does Dallas was another favorite...."

HR = Leak in the payroll.

Where I work they are just a joke, the managers just laugh at their stupidity.
But when a sexual harrassment case comes forward they have learned that the HR department is the enemy and it's best to treat them like that.
We learned the hard way that the politically correct idiots will hang the poor MAN who is accused.

Anonymous said...

This brings back memories of my favourite interview:

HR ditz asks me: Are you married? (Illegal question)

Me: I'm not planning on getting married with you.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

In what businesses do HR employees actually interview candidates? In the fields I've worked in, having experienced the hiring process as both a job candidate and a hiring manager, the interviews are done by the hiring manager and his staff. The HR girl explains the benefits and such, but has no say in the hiring decision.

Anonymous said...

I read the Businessweek article. I feel sick (seriously, simply reading it has made me feel nauseous).

I will never look at an HR person as anything more than a retarded drone for the rest of my life.