In reply to Laura Ann:

We should start a new thread about the things we did say that we shouldn't have! I advertised for a finance position and a guy applied (clearly just to meet job seekers targets) who was a plumber. I forwarded it to the Head of Finance with the simple message "are we looking for a plumber?" only I didn't hit forward.............I hit reply.

In reply to Deborah:

Reference... "To" field instead of the "bcc"

"You need to reorganise a little: Here is an exercise to help:

Up; Grow. "

In reply to Robert James Munro:

On the somewhat more serious subject of HR's position and responsibilities: We do not "represent" anyone. We are paid by the company to "serve" its interests. The significant difference being that if those managing the company, or any one of them, seek to have the company follow a course of action we know to be unlawful or unethical, we are duty bound to oppose that course, knowing that it is against the company's interests. We thus cannot "represent" the company in its breach of statute or obligation, but must, rather, defend it against itself (or, more particularly, those (mis)guiding it).

For example, if the Managing Director, backed by the rest of the Board, decides that we are hiring too many disabled employees and wishes us to create a procedural mechanism to prevent this, we cannot do so. We cannot "represent" that unlawful policy through use of our professional skill.

Similarly, we cannot concur with a line-manager's decision to unfairly dismiss an employee as an "unreasonable" response to a trivial misdemeanour, because they find them annoying, or don't like their Scottish accent, or for any other personal bias (or other flawed rationale).

The "collateral" effect might appear to benefit employees or employment candidates (or some of them), but our sole contractual objective is to prevent harm to the company, by keeping it from incurring sanction and loss of repute in Court or Tribunal.

If, in a misguided attempt at compromise (or self-preservation) we permit ourselves to draft the required procedure, we will indeed then be "representing" the wishes of those "running" the company, but will be doing so against its interests and might also find ourselves held to be responsible, both at law and before our professional peers, for "representing" its malfeasance.

Paradoxical as it may seem, we must remember that the company exists as an entity, separate from those directing it: It is that entity that hires us (in whatever capacity), and to whom we therefore owe allegiance: Not its Directors, not its employees, not the company cat, but the business as a whole. (This is true even if the business is wholly owned proprietorially and not a Ltd. Company or PLC). Our contracts do not excuse us "representing" the business through any unlawful act (contract cannot ever override statute), even though it is the Owner/CEO/MD, and every other person employed (remembering that all Managers and Directors are also employees) who wishes us to "represent" their wishes and intentions.

The reason being that those wishes etc. will themselves be against the company's interests (by making it break the law!)

We "serve" the Company, we do not "represent" it, unless specifically delegated to do so, and must then only do so lawfully, or it is us who commits the crime, betrays the trust required of us by failing to protect the company's legitimate interests through our practice, and also betray our professional Code of Conduct.

Which means that sometimes we need to make some hard choices in relation to our personal interests and/or our popularity with the Board and other managers.

But that's what we get paid for.

P

In reply to Peter:

Well said Peter :)

I actually said to a senior manager once (in relation to a post we had been trying to recruit to for approximately 12 months): "I'm sorry, but I think we're hunting for a unicorn here"

I often think (but don't say to managers) "What do you want me to do, start cloning people?!"

As for employees...well...grow up is something I frequently think!

In reply to Emily:

When I used to give talks on HR to managers I used to offer an example about recruiting: Imagine you have opened a new admin' department, to which you recruit three Admin' Clerks. In 12 months time, one leaves. What job-description will you need?

(The answer was almost inevitably several puzzled mutterings of "Admin' Clerk").

But the reality is that those three people will have "gravitated" towards the tasks they like best and/or do most efficiently... One will have been the first to answer the phone, one will have focused on the filing, one will have been the one who chased-up the end-of-month-statistics.....and so on.

So the replacement they need will maybe have a quite different J-D from their predecessor, or the dusty copy in the filing cabinet.

Hire the person you really need, not just a "replacement" of the job-title or what that says you need.

(Indeed, your review of "who does what" for the J-D might reveal you don't need a replacement at all!) :-)

P

In reply to Peter:

Oh god, this!

In my current organisation, jobs are often badged to an individual they think they want to hire (small community so everyone knows everyone) and JDs are written to describe that individual's strengths, rather than actually reflecting the role that is needed. It's so frustrating as when that person inevitably moves on, we're left with a JD which bears no relation to the job that is required or the skills of possible candidates, yet managers are reluctant to update the JD because that involves effort and they would have to wait for the role to be re-graded. They then complain when we can't find an exact duplication of the person they had before or no one will do the job for the salary advertised as the role and responsibilities have expanded but the pay/grade hasn't!

In reply to Emily:

Ah, but Emily, was it a standard unicorn or the more elusive feathered unicorn... :)

In reply to Lesley:

Lesley, this is otherwise known as the 'Mrs Jones' syndrome. Mrs Jones has done the job for the last 130 years, she knows it inside out, things are done without having to be asked for, we want - no, we DEMAND - another, identical, Mrs Jones...

In reply to Teresa:

Or the rarely-seen bushy-tailed Unicorn? :-)

In reply to Lesley:

That is why one of the sneaky-suggestions to float is that by examining the (real) role and creating the J-D from it , then the Person-spec from the J-D, you might save some of their budget.... (A giant, honey-flavoured carrot to dangle before any budget-holding manager)

(You don't mention it could also cost them more)

Devious? Moi? Perish the thought..... :-)

In reply to Peter:

Ooo Peter, don't tell me you've actually seen one? I'm so jealous! I've always been led to believe that the last one was run over by Santa's sledge whilst being chased by a rampant gang of Tooth Fairies high on Colgate fumes... ;)

In reply to Teresa:

I thought I caught a glimpse of one once, but it was actually a flying squirrel.

Alas I fear you may be right that they are no more.... So sad :(

In reply to Peter:

Yes, we will be trying that one.

I've got reviewing our whole JD/PS, org design and evaluation processes on my very long wish list of activities, because it's certainly not meeting the needs of our services at the moment, but that's one for another day! A few fires to put out in the meantime.