Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Viewing this thread and some of its responses, I have to say that now that I think about it, I think it'd pretty easy for HR to introduce a little bad faith into the system to de-grease the wheel for intangible or "cultural" reasons as they see fit. It's not like a job applicant could ever know, right? Corporations aren't exactly transparent - you have to basically bring in the federal government as leverage to get any data about existing hires, much less the ones that didn't make the cut.
Viewing this thread and some of its responses, I have to say that now that I think about it, I think it'd pretty easy for HR to introduce a little bad faith into the system to de-grease the wheel for intangible or "cultural" reasons as they see fit. It's not like a job applicant could ever know, right? Corporations aren't exactly transparent - you have to basically bring in the federal government as leverage to get any data about existing hires, much less the ones that didn't make the cut.
HR departments are there to benefit the company. If an HR department is bad, then it is most likely because the company's intentions are bad. The power within a company does not lie with HR.
You don't have to know everything? You know nothing. Did you even comprehend my post? HR is not psychology. You do not need to take any psychology courses to work in HR. Most HR job openings ask for a degree in HR or business administration, not psychology. The overwhelming majority of people will never have contact with an I/O psychologist during the application and hiring process. You admitted that you know nothing about psychology, but you have a lot of opinions about it. You can't even tell the difference between HR and psychology. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?.
I think you and MSChemist are actually saying the same thing. That is exactly his point, that HR are NOT psychologists but many like to think they are using pop psychology to sort and rate employees.
I think you and MSChemist are actually saying the same thing. That is exactly his point, that HR are NOT psychologists but many like to think they are using pop psychology to sort and rate employees.
That is not what he is saying. He has said these things over and over again in multiple threads. He was very clear in saying that he does not respect the field of psychology, especially organizational psychology. He also bragged about never taking a psychology course. How does that have anything to do with the millions of people in HR who have MBAs and degrees in HR? Even if most HR professionals had advanced degrees in psychology, he would not respect them because he does not respect psychology even though he has admitted that he knows nothing about it. The validity of the field of psychology shouldn't have even been brought up because it is irrelevant to this thread.
HR is a fluff position that came about due to requirements of the insurance industry, mostly . . .
Not sure what their job is. It changes with the issue. Whatever borishness they create for themselves to justify that being a position or whatever dirtywork a dept manager tells them to engage in. My experience with HR is that they exist to fight you on vacation time/benefits, and make sure "the company" looks good in any possible legal dealings, so it requires one to be a good liar and factual manipulator. Sometimes I really miss the 70's . . . The time before HR, the time when a manager hired you--you knew a lot more about what you were getting in to.
HR is a fluff position that came about due to requirements of the insurance industry, mostly . . .
Not sure what their job is. It changes with the issue. Whatever borishness they create for themselves to justify that being a position or whatever dirtywork a dept manager tells them to engage in. My experience with HR is that they exist to fight you on vacation time/benefits, and make sure "the company" looks good in any possible legal dealings, so it requires one to be a good liar and factual manipulator. Sometimes I really miss the 70's . . . The time before HR, the time when a manager hired you--you knew a lot more about what you were getting in to.
Companies choose to have HR departments. HR departments don't create themselves. My guess is that companies created HR departments because they didn't want managers spending a lot of time dealing with employment law, benefits, pay, etc. Things are a lot more complicated than they were in the 70s. I was a supervisor at two large companies. I can tell you that I would not want to deal with managing employees and their benefits and pay.
I've had some really bad interviews with people in HR, but I've also had really bad interviews with hiring managers. I honestly can't tell you which one I prefer after being in the workforce for over 10 years. For the past few years, most of my interviews have either had no HR person in the room or one HR person along with supervisors and/or managers. I would say that, for 99% of the interviews I've had, HR did not make the hiring decision. I think that, since people see that HR departments are sifting through applications and resumes and are sometimes conducting interviews, that they believe they are the ones making the hiring decisions. This is usually not the case.
You don't have to know everything? You know nothing. Did you even comprehend my post? HR is not psychology. You do not need to take any psychology courses to work in HR. Most HR job openings ask for a degree in HR or business administration, not psychology. The overwhelming majority of people will never have contact with an I/O psychologist during the application and hiring process. You admitted that you know nothing about psychology, but you have a lot of opinions about it. You can't even tell the difference between HR and psychology. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
You could have benefited from more history courses because several genocides have been carried out against innocent people who were hated by many. This is not a defense of HR. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument. Have you ever taken a statistics or logic course? Those might help.
If they don't even take psychology courses, then that makes the psychobabble and profiling myself and most other job seekers have had to endure from them all the more pathetic given their complete lack of qualifications. I don't doubt what you are saying given HR's pension for inserting themselves into places where they have no business being and no clue what they ared doing.
I have taken quite a few history courses and have almost a minor in it. The idea that HR are poor scape-goated victims like jews or Armenians is one of the most preposterous things ever posted here. The main difference will be not many will regret giving the axe to HR people.
Im at a non-profit. The cesspool of the corporate world. Soon to be out, I hope---> We have 5 HR people for 350. Their first order of business is getting friends and relatives in. At first it was a pretty harsh slap in the face to interview for a job only to have one come in from the outside and snipe the job from you. But now, understanding everything is 'ism' based, we try to decode the job posting to see who they have in mind. In one situtation, the erstwhile HR rep wanted to move into a "research" position, the only one where you could possibly do less, so, she was taking resumes for the position she got! Huh?!?!?!? I could go on and on . . .
If they don't even take psychology courses, then that makes the psychobabble and profiling myself and most other job seekers have had to endure from them all the more pathetic given their complete lack of qualifications. I don't doubt what you are saying given HR's pension for inserting themselves into places where they have no business being and no clue what they ared doing.
I have taken quite a few history courses and have almost a minor in it. The idea that HR are poor scape-goated victims like jews or Armenians is one of the most preposterous things ever posted here. The main difference will be not many will regret giving the axe to HR people.
I wasn't saying that HR people are victims like the Jews. The argument that you presented was just preposterous, and I responded to that. It was just an example of many people believing something that is not true. I could have easily used religion, conspiracy theories, or the belief that the world was flat. It doesn't matter who or what the subject is. Many people can, have, and will believe things that are not true. I can't believe that such flawed reasoning came from a scientist. Just because many people have an opinion or believe something does not make it true. You're also sampling from forums and people in your own life, which is not the least bit scientific.
Last edited by L210; 12-13-2015 at 08:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
