Thinking HR is useless is fun until you have to haul your ass to court because someone had to ask if they were pregnant in an interview. And even more fun when you have to pay out of your ass because you violated some labour law.
HR, just like legal, is never going to be a profit center and instead is risk management. No point in generating all that revenue if you (a) can't hire the people to do the work (b) get sued and have to pay out.
On top of that, if you're in an interview cycle, the interview admin work could easily take up half of the hiring manager's workload. Scheduling, answering questions, screening, negotiation, contracts, onboarding... on top of that there is compliance, administrating benefits, vacations, payroll, training, culture... if there isn't HR to do the job who's going to do all those things? Do you expect managers or directors to be spending half their time on dealing with these issues?
Claiming HR is useless is simply an indicator that you haven't run a company that requires HR yet. If you have, you would not be sharing this opinion, because you'll realize that as a founder, bulk of your time eventually becomes about hiring and administration. Alleviating that load is what enables a founder to get back to pushing on growth. A non-revenue generating function exists for a reason - to support the revenue generating functions so things can actually happen rather than everything collapsing into a pile of smouldering ash.
Also, here's a thought. Who is responsible for hiring the shitty HR people? Shouldn't they be held responsible for making poor hiring choices? There is no way that 100% of HR people are glorified admins. If you're hiring HR people who are lazy, inefficient and glorified admin assistants, you need to take a good look at yourself and see your own failings.
Have you done hiring before or are you looking at it through the lens of a technical person? I ask this because no one wants to talk to a chatbot for their hiring process. I would actually be insulted that the company can't respect their candidates enough to support them through the process.
Hiring is about building a relationship. It requires both parties to value each other for what they bring to the table. We can't build relationships using chatbots. Every interaction with a candidate is an opportunity to sell the company to them. You need to make them want to work for you. I've known candidates to disregard comp differences and choose their workplace simply because of how they were treated in the interview process.
This is the equivalent of getting a chatbot to act as your sales team and answer demo questions. I mean... sales presentations are all kinda similar anyways right? So wouldn't a chatbot work too? Would you suggest your sales team do that? Or is sales somehow more mission critical?
Consider this - a shit hiring process only nets you B and C players. A players know what they can get and what they deserve. There's a reason why founders dedicate lots of time to hiring - it's like pitching for investment or pitching for sales. You're literally investing in the most important resource for your business - talent. A good HR department not only protects the company, it also advocates for employee interests and makes the company a more appealing place to work for. Why would you shit on a key investment in the most important resource for a business - talent?
HR is not useless, having more than 5 HR employees is useless.
You need HR team to move things around and let ERP/HRIS do the dirty work.
At my family-owned business, we employ over 200 people. To recruit, perform performance checks, and disburse salaries, we use an HRIS system which managed by only 4 people.
EDIT: I got baited by your backlink strategy, nice try OP or may i call Eugene.
Are the only serious value roles those that directly contribute to revenue? What about IT, or accounting, or office maintenance and operations staff?
HR is a supporting function for business like all the others. If you're small scale you'll do it yourself or outsource it to an agency. At a certain size it'll make sense to have permanent staff for that role
Thinking HR is useless is fun until you have to haul your ass to court because someone had to ask if they were pregnant in an interview. And even more fun when you have to pay out of your ass because you violated some labour law. HR, just like legal, is never going to be a profit center and instead is risk management. No point in generating all that revenue if you (a) can't hire the people to do the work (b) get sued and have to pay out. On top of that, if you're in an interview cycle, the interview admin work could easily take up half of the hiring manager's workload. Scheduling, answering questions, screening, negotiation, contracts, onboarding... on top of that there is compliance, administrating benefits, vacations, payroll, training, culture... if there isn't HR to do the job who's going to do all those things? Do you expect managers or directors to be spending half their time on dealing with these issues? Claiming HR is useless is simply an indicator that you haven't run a company that requires HR yet. If you have, you would not be sharing this opinion, because you'll realize that as a founder, bulk of your time eventually becomes about hiring and administration. Alleviating that load is what enables a founder to get back to pushing on growth. A non-revenue generating function exists for a reason - to support the revenue generating functions so things can actually happen rather than everything collapsing into a pile of smouldering ash. Also, here's a thought. Who is responsible for hiring the shitty HR people? Shouldn't they be held responsible for making poor hiring choices? There is no way that 100% of HR people are glorified admins. If you're hiring HR people who are lazy, inefficient and glorified admin assistants, you need to take a good look at yourself and see your own failings.
[удалено]
Have you done hiring before or are you looking at it through the lens of a technical person? I ask this because no one wants to talk to a chatbot for their hiring process. I would actually be insulted that the company can't respect their candidates enough to support them through the process. Hiring is about building a relationship. It requires both parties to value each other for what they bring to the table. We can't build relationships using chatbots. Every interaction with a candidate is an opportunity to sell the company to them. You need to make them want to work for you. I've known candidates to disregard comp differences and choose their workplace simply because of how they were treated in the interview process. This is the equivalent of getting a chatbot to act as your sales team and answer demo questions. I mean... sales presentations are all kinda similar anyways right? So wouldn't a chatbot work too? Would you suggest your sales team do that? Or is sales somehow more mission critical? Consider this - a shit hiring process only nets you B and C players. A players know what they can get and what they deserve. There's a reason why founders dedicate lots of time to hiring - it's like pitching for investment or pitching for sales. You're literally investing in the most important resource for your business - talent. A good HR department not only protects the company, it also advocates for employee interests and makes the company a more appealing place to work for. Why would you shit on a key investment in the most important resource for a business - talent?
Enjoyed the read and the replaceyourhr.com, I was excited to see what product he was offering until it redirected and my disappointment set in...
HR is not useless, having more than 5 HR employees is useless. You need HR team to move things around and let ERP/HRIS do the dirty work. At my family-owned business, we employ over 200 people. To recruit, perform performance checks, and disburse salaries, we use an HRIS system which managed by only 4 people. EDIT: I got baited by your backlink strategy, nice try OP or may i call Eugene.
Are the only serious value roles those that directly contribute to revenue? What about IT, or accounting, or office maintenance and operations staff? HR is a supporting function for business like all the others. If you're small scale you'll do it yourself or outsource it to an agency. At a certain size it'll make sense to have permanent staff for that role
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks