HR is not your friend
miserablyemployed.com
HR is not your friend
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: HR is not your friend
#2[deleted]
Re: HR is not your friend
#3Fact check: true
Re: HR is not your friend
#4Holy self-evident claim batman!
On a more serious note, if you're high enough up the food chain to afford such services and have significant downside risk, I'd recommend running anything you are unsure about by your own personal counsel first before running it by your firm's compliance and legal department.
Re: HR is not your friend
#5> “Anonymous Surveys” are a trap
This is both something I know is true, and also something I struggle to understand. I can't get my head around why company leadership would ever consider true anonymous feedback from down the org chart as anything but an incredibly valuable resource. Surely this could be a bad thing for some execs who are doing a terrible job and this would be evidence against them, but I would think that the majority would still want that information so they could remove those members from their ranks.
Re: HR is not your friend
#6Holy self-evident claim batman! On a more serious note, if you're high enough up the food chain to afford such services and have significant downside risk, I'd recommend running anything you are unsure about by your own personal counsel first before running it by your firm's compliance and legal department.
I mean, this seems pretty obvious when you say it out loud. Of course the incentives are bent towards a compliance or legal department and not towards you. Of course you should protect yourself first and foremost.
Re: HR is not your friend
#7All correct, but remember, especially in the bay area: you always meet twice in life.
So be careful burning down those bridges if meeting with HR went sideways.
Re: HR is not your friend
#8> “Anonymous Surveys” are a trap This is both something I know is true, and also something I struggle to understand. I can't get my head around why company leadership would ever consider true anonymous feedback from down the org chart as anything but an incredibly valuable resource. Surely this could be a bad thing for some execs who are doing a terrible job and this would be evidence against them, but I would think…
Honestly, I'm in the same boat with this. I find it so frustrating. The core concept of anonymous feedback to honestly assess issues so that they can be dealt with seems so critical. I'm sure that in some orgs it is actually anonymous. The problem is that I'm ALSO sure that in some orgs it is categorically not. This means that you must assume that it is always not, because your job is on the line. Those orgs who can't act in good faith have poisoned the well for everyone.
Re: HR is not your friend
#9> “Anonymous Surveys” are a trap This is both something I know is true, and also something I struggle to understand. I can't get my head around why company leadership would ever consider true anonymous feedback from down the org chart as anything but an incredibly valuable resource. Surely this could be a bad thing for some execs who are doing a terrible job and this would be evidence against them, but I would think…
So the thing is these anonymous surveys are just a way to "incriminate" managers. Most surveys are structure NOT to ask "Do you think Leader X is bad". It is more about "Do you understand what Leader/Org X is doing". So a "no" here means either "you" are the problem for not understanding or your manager for not clearly "explaining" what Leader/Org X is doing. So managers now have an extra job of selling some top-down vision with very limited data (relative to where there in the ladder) but without using the words "because VP X said so".
Re: HR is not your friend
#10> “Anonymous Surveys” are a trap This is both something I know is true, and also something I struggle to understand. I can't get my head around why company leadership would ever consider true anonymous feedback from down the org chart as anything but an incredibly valuable resource. Surely this could be a bad thing for some execs who are doing a terrible job and this would be evidence against them, but I would think…
[deleted]