Now we see why they are in HR



  •  From http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Compensation/Job-Descriptions/Job-Title-Inflation-Whats-in-a-Name-/

    "Suppose, for example, that you have a sizable group of employees with the same job title—but 10 percent of them are high performers, 60 percent are just OK, another 30 percent are truly mediocre, and the last 10 percent are close to worthless."



  • @kc0a said:

     From http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Compensation/Job-Descriptions/Job-Title-Inflation-Whats-in-a-Name-/

    "Suppose, for example, that you have a sizable group of employees with the same job title—but 10 percent of them are high performers, 60 percent are just OK, another 30 percent are truly mediocre, and the last 10 percent are close to worthless."

    I though this ratio was the norm, not everyone can be the "high performers"  I bet the whole "I need a better title" people are in the just ok and below range.  Most fo the high performers actually enjoy thier job and may actuall not care abotu the title as long as they are recognized.



  • @KattMan said:

    @kc0a said:

     From http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Compensation/Job-Descriptions/Job-Title-Inflation-Whats-in-a-Name-/

    "Suppose, for example, that you have a sizable group of employees with the same job title—but 10 percent of them are high performers, 60 percent are just OK, another 30 percent are truly mediocre, and the last 10 percent are close to worthless."

    I though this ratio was the norm, not everyone can be the "high performers"  I bet the whole "I need a better title" people are in the just ok and below range.  Most fo the high performers actually enjoy thier job and may actuall not care abotu the title as long as they are recognized.

    Did you add those numbers up?  What's 10% + 60% + 30% + 10%?  Do you want to re-think your comment? 



  • @nonpartisan said:

    @KattMan said:

    @kc0a said:

     From http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Compensation/Job-Descriptions/Job-Title-Inflation-Whats-in-a-Name-/

    "Suppose, for example, that you have a sizable group of employees with the same job title—but 10 percent of them are high performers, 60 percent are just OK, another 30 percent are truly mediocre, and the last 10 percent are close to worthless."

    I though this ratio was the norm, not everyone can be the "high performers"  I bet the whole "I need a better title" people are in the just ok and below range.  Most fo the high performers actually enjoy thier job and may actuall not care abotu the title as long as they are recognized.

    Did you add those numbers up?  What's 10% + 60% + 30% + 10%?  Do you want to re-think your comment? 

    KattMan is in the 10%.  (I'll leave it to you to decide which one)


  • So based off of the link, it is against the law to have work not match job title.  I wonder if this includes actual work not matching job description, since that could be used as an argument as to why developers should not be mopping floors (I am feeling too lazy to link to the other thread about that).



  • It's simple - the employees are giving 110%, so it seems like there are 10% more employees than there are, based on the amount of work that's getting done!



  • @Anketam said:

    So based off of the link, it is against the law to have work not match job title.  I wonder if this includes actual work not matching job description, since that could be used as an argument as to why developers should not be mopping floors (I am feeling too lazy to link to the other thread about that).
    You get into trouble when you pay someone salary, but they should be paid hourly. Inflating titles sometimes leads to a switch to salary, especially if the title has "supervisor" or "manager" in it.

    As for the job actually matching the title, my boss is perfectly safe. My last two titles (at two different companies) were "Senior Technology Consultant" and "Senior Application Consultant". I'm pretty sure almost any work would fit those titles.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Did you add those numbers up?  What's 10% + 60% + 30% + 10%?  Do you want to re-think your comment? 

    Nope, I never mentioned numbers in my post, simply remarking on the other side of things.  The reporter not able to do math has no bearing on HR people or anyone else, this wasn't a quote, the reporter put that in himself, so yes I did read the article.

    Want to get pedantic over this?  Then the title should have instead been "Now we see why he is a reporter."

    On another angle, the worthless 10% are the same 10% performing while high.



  • @KattMan said:

    Nope, I never mentioned numbers in my post, simply remarking on the other side of things.  The reporter not able to do math has no bearing on HR people or anyone else, this wasn't a quote, the reporter put that in himself, so yes I did read the article.

    Want to get pedantic over this?  Then the title should have instead been "Now we see why he is a reporter."

    Probably a good choice that the reporter's name isn't listed.

    That said, writing for the HR section of a Web site, it's reasonable to infer that the person works or has worked in HR.

     



  • @nonpartisan said:

    @KattMan said:

    Nope, I never mentioned numbers in my post, simply remarking on the other side of things.  The reporter not able to do math has no bearing on HR people or anyone else, this wasn't a quote, the reporter put that in himself, so yes I did read the article.

    Want to get pedantic over this?  Then the title should have instead been "Now we see why he is a reporter."

    Probably a good choice that the reporter's name isn't listed.

    That said, writing for the HR section of a Web site, it's reasonable to infer that the person works or has worked in HR.

    But, hopefully, with his failure to do simple math and screwing up peoples pay rates, he has been fired and now writes about HR.

    Those who can, do; those who can't, blog about others who can.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Did you add those numbers up?  What's 10% + 60% + 30% + 10%? 

     

    Yeah. 110%. Sports coaches and TV would lead me to believe that's synonymous with "all".



  • Even if you were right, that would be one plus one plus two plus one, not one plus two plus one plus one.

    Okay, fine. One plus two plus one... Shut up! The point is, there is one bullet left in this gun and guess who's gonna get it!



  • @nonpartisan said:

    @KattMan said:

    @kc0a said:

     From http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Compensation/Job-Descriptions/Job-Title-Inflation-Whats-in-a-Name-/

    "Suppose, for example, that you have a sizable group of employees with the same job title—but 10 percent of them are high performers, 60 percent are just OK, another 30 percent are truly mediocre, and the last 10 percent are close to worthless."

    I though this ratio was the norm, not everyone can be the "high performers"  I bet the whole "I need a better title" people are in the just ok and below range.  Most fo the high performers actually enjoy thier job and may actuall not care abotu the title as long as they are recognized.

    Did you add those numbers up?  What's 10% + 60% + 30% + 10%?  Do you want to re-think your comment? 

    He didn't say anything about the total, only the ratio. When normalized to a standard scale, it's something like 9%, 55%, 27%, 9%.



  • @shadowman said:

    Even if you were right, that would be one plus one plus two plus one, not one plus two plus one plus one.

    Okay, fine. One plus two plus one... Shut up! The point is, there is one bullet left in this gun and guess who's gonna get it!

    Good Lord, shadowman made a post rather than fixing someone else's post.

    Anyways the author's last 10% was refering as a subset of the bottom 30%.  Could have been better worded but it is not like anyone around here ever gets picky over mispelled words, or grammar mistakes.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    That said, writing for the HR section of a Web site, it's reasonable to infer that the person works or has worked in HR.

    Just like it's reasonable to infer that sports writers were star athletes or that reporters who write about economics or policy actually have knowledge of either. Or what's more likely: reporters know nothing which is why they consider themselves experts at everything.



  • @Jaime said:

    My last two titles (at two different companies) were "Senior Technology Consultant" and "Senior Application Consultant". I'm pretty sure almost any work would fit those titles.

    My last title was something godawful like "Senior Systems Java Architect". I protested but was told that the investors wouldn't pay the salary I negotiated to someone with the title "Software and Systems Guy".



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Jaime said:
    My last two titles (at two different companies) were "Senior Technology Consultant" and "Senior Application Consultant". I'm pretty sure almost any work would fit those titles.

    My last title was something godawful like "Senior Systems Java Architect". I protested but was told that the investors wouldn't pay the salary I negotiated to someone with the title "Software and Systems Guy".

    My last title was Microcomputer Decision Support Specialist. Now it's Professional Services Engineer.

    Used to be no one knew what the hell my job was. Now I just sound like a prostitute.



  • My job title used to be Senior Web Analytics Engineer, which was simultaneously unique enough, specific enough, and vague enough to be a perfect combination.

    Alas I no longer have it.



  • My title is "Computer Scientist", although my duties are closer to "Systems Engineer".



  • @Someone You Know said:

    Now I just sound like a prostitute.

    You should review the wording of your contract quite carefully to see if producing such audio effects are a requirement of the job.

    I know I'd demand more pay.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.