I think we are doomed. At least if this kind of thing is the pinnacle of the people profession, we are. Check out the blog entry - http://tinyurl.com/aoht3y and the website - http://tinyurl.com/b7vygz.
I'm afraid I lost patience with this blog entry immediately. First I'm being patronised because 'Evidence Based HR' is in fact Evidence based Management. I said it was? Then there is the totally surplus to requirements "(also note: 'Evidence-based HR' is grammatically incorrect.)". I want to stab him already.
And come on, get some web etiquette and STOP SHOUTING! I imagine Mr Higgins delivering a lecture on evidence based HR or management or medicine or whatever it is or isn't and shouting every time he mentions the phrase. A sort of intellectual Dom Jolly springs to mind. Its like we are so thick that if he shouts loud enough we might just understand it.
Well pardon me but I don't need this kind of cobblers to 'get' people or to understand the value of them or the HR function thank you, evidence based or not. Sure, science over style if you must, but at the most this is a social science, not a physical or mathematical one. Research shmeesearch. Formula's and endless data streams we don't really need to be honest. There is so much of that out there and has it made a jot of difference?? Has it fuck.
If we are saying we have to do this kind of stuff and invest in this approach to produce the data that gives us the 'hard evidence' necessary to prove to the value of people and HR to my fellow suits then I'm afraid we are flogging the arse of a dead horse. There are much better things to spend the corporate dollars on.
I really don't get this whole agenda? Why do we have to continue to re invent and create new acronyms and 'high falutin' names for this very basic and fundamental part of the work dynamic? It doesn't matter how many times we come up with something different in a desperate attempt to make it sound more credible and relevant to corporate leaders, because fundamentally it doesn't matter to them and it never will. As someone said to me, 'they just don't get it, they don't believe' Hallelujah!
One day, if the planet survives long enough, my children will grow up and enter the world of 'commerce' (yuck) and you never know they might even go into the world of HR, or whatever it will be called then. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that if either comes home one day and says "Hey I'm researching this Evidenced based HR stuff" I promise you all I will shoot them. It would be the humane option.
And, Mr Higgins, forgive me but, next time someone mentions 'Evidence Based HR' to me I wont "Just ask them where did it emanate from" for two reasons:
I'm afraid I lost patience with this blog entry immediately. First I'm being patronised because 'Evidence Based HR' is in fact Evidence based Management. I said it was? Then there is the totally surplus to requirements "(also note: 'Evidence-based HR' is grammatically incorrect.)". I want to stab him already.
And come on, get some web etiquette and STOP SHOUTING! I imagine Mr Higgins delivering a lecture on evidence based HR or management or medicine or whatever it is or isn't and shouting every time he mentions the phrase. A sort of intellectual Dom Jolly springs to mind. Its like we are so thick that if he shouts loud enough we might just understand it.
Well pardon me but I don't need this kind of cobblers to 'get' people or to understand the value of them or the HR function thank you, evidence based or not. Sure, science over style if you must, but at the most this is a social science, not a physical or mathematical one. Research shmeesearch. Formula's and endless data streams we don't really need to be honest. There is so much of that out there and has it made a jot of difference?? Has it fuck.
If we are saying we have to do this kind of stuff and invest in this approach to produce the data that gives us the 'hard evidence' necessary to prove to the value of people and HR to my fellow suits then I'm afraid we are flogging the arse of a dead horse. There are much better things to spend the corporate dollars on.
I really don't get this whole agenda? Why do we have to continue to re invent and create new acronyms and 'high falutin' names for this very basic and fundamental part of the work dynamic? It doesn't matter how many times we come up with something different in a desperate attempt to make it sound more credible and relevant to corporate leaders, because fundamentally it doesn't matter to them and it never will. As someone said to me, 'they just don't get it, they don't believe' Hallelujah!
One day, if the planet survives long enough, my children will grow up and enter the world of 'commerce' (yuck) and you never know they might even go into the world of HR, or whatever it will be called then. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that if either comes home one day and says "Hey I'm researching this Evidenced based HR stuff" I promise you all I will shoot them. It would be the humane option.
And, Mr Higgins, forgive me but, next time someone mentions 'Evidence Based HR' to me I wont "Just ask them where did it emanate from" for two reasons:
- I don't want to look like a smart arse.
- I DON'T GIVE A FUCK!
Sorry for shouting. I'm off to my anger management class. Or is that Evidence Based Anger Management?
Finally if you find anything equally as bad on the poeple front, send me the link. I need pushing over the edge.
Finally if you find anything equally as bad on the poeple front, send me the link. I need pushing over the edge.
Posts
This gave me a laugh on a Friday afternoon.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pity Nick didn't reply. Good scraps make blogging a lot more fun.