The sheer fucking arrogance of someone to think they can tell the founder / owner of a company what they can and can't do (minus illegal stuff, obviously) is utterly mind-boggling to me.
I legitimately cannot even fathom it. This is akin to telling God how to run Heaven.
Ignoring the HR issue for a moment: a company where the founder had dictatorial powers is a terrible company. The CFO should absolutely tell the manager they can’t make an investment that’s reckless and stupid. The Director of Engineering should absolutely tell the founder that they can’t add that cool-sounding feature because it’s an inherent security risk. A humble Jr QA Engineer should tell the founder they can’t say a bug is fixed when it is not fixed. And any of these people should find different work if the founder overrules them or tries to bully them into backing off.
You’re totally right! The difference between these examples and my previous HR example is that yours show employees doing what’s best for the company, while mine shows employees doing what’s best for HR.
You should never... and I mean never... TELL your boss (much less a founder or CEO) what they can and can't do.
That's a great way to torpedo your career.
"You can't invest $10 million in ergonomic chairs." should be "While ergonomic chairs are a good investment, we might be better served investing $10 million in our core competencies for now, and perhaps focus later on the chairs when our revenue stream is a bit more stable."
"You can't add cool-sounding feature because it's an inherent security risk." should be, "While cool-sounding feature does, indeed, sound cool, I'm concerned about the potential liability this might expose the company to, given that implementing cool-sounding feature causes <security issue> by its very nature. I could look at implementing something that mimics the functionality of cool-sounding feature, but keeps our products secure."
And lastly, Humble Jr. QA Engineer should say, "Mr./Mrs./Miss So-And-So, if I claim that bug <Z> is fixed when its not, this might come back to reflect negatively on our company when Customer Y reports that bug."
And lastly, almost every company's founder / CEO / leader has dictatorial powers. Companies aren't governments. You live and die by the good graces of those above you, and if you can get noticed by the people at the very top, and you consistently deliver for them, you'll have a far more pleasant work life.
Or just telling people what they can and can't do and see how that one works out for you...
LMAO how is that “ruling with an iron fist”? You got that person fired! And no, I am a programmer who does not work in HR.
Nobody is saying HR is infallible. But a mistake like “HR had a silly policy around hiring” is not as bad for an organization as “the director of engineering got drunk, harassed an intern, and threatened to fire her if she complained.”
I only fired them because they had been doing this to other hiring managers without my knowledge for months. So they had been ruling with an iron fist against what was best for the company.
This was at a time when the company was growing customer base by 100% every few months and we needed people ASAP. HR decided it was marginally easier for them if everyone started on the 1st, harming productivity of value-add departments.
Making your life marginally better at the expense of company growth is ruling with an iron fist. Every department needs to be willing to do what it takes to sustain growth.
> “the director of engineering got drunk, harassed an intern, and threatened to fire her if she complained.”
It’s unclear to me how HR is any different from the CEO here. If any employee at my company experienced sexual harassment I would expect them to come to me, and said Director would be out the door within minutes. No need for HR there. If anything they’re just another hoop the victim has to jump through.
What if the intern was lying or it was a misunderstanding? What if the intern was afraid you'd think they were lying or it was a misunderstanding? What if the intern assumed that you support the director's behavior since you out the director in a high ranking position?
If the intern trusted you, why why would HR be a hoop they had to jump through?
How many employees do you have that rampant start date abuse had been going on without your knowledge?
I think that’s a fair criticism. It’s certainly a harder problem than I let on. A CEO can be as shitty, or more shitty, than HR. I hope I’ll never be viewed as less helpful than HR to anyone I employ.
Still, though, most of those issues can still apply to HR. IME, employees rarely trust HR departments to be on their side in a dispute. They’re paid by the company to look after the company’s interests, after all.
> It’s unclear to me how HR is any different from the CEO here. If any employee at my company experienced sexual harassment I would expect them to come to me, and said Director would be out the door within minutes. No need for HR there. If anything they’re just another hoop the victim has to jump through.
I agree with this - if a CEO tolerates bad behavior (such as sexual harassment) in their company, having an HR department or not will make little difference.
This is true (Ubisoft is an extremely good example - there, HR exists to protect the cabal of creeps who run the company). But if a CEO does not tolerate bad behavior, HR is an indispensable tool for protecting workers from unscrupulous managers and colleagues, and for allowing safe whistleblowers. It is ridiculous (and, frankly, suspicious) to suggest the CEO can handle it by themselves.
I won that fight and that person was gone fast.
Do you work in HR? I don’t think I’d hire you either.