” I don’t do personnel.”
As Tom Peters notes in his blog entry - Drucker Supplanted? Re-writing the Book on Effective Management Under Life & Death Circumstances?
…Relatively new (and controversial) CIA chief Porter Goss, responding to recent defections among the old pro crowd, passed on answering a query about the departures with this record-shattering non-answer: “I don’t do personnel.”
Ouch. So maybe he’s continuing the not-so-grand management tradition at the CIA for things like bureau chiefs in foreign countries who don’t speak the local language? Now, an analysis of the U.S. intelligence agencies is beyond the scope of both my blog and my abilities. However, “personnel” applies to every type of organization or business. All too often, Human Resources is the Rodney Dangerfield of departments. No respect, and even less say in strategy, direction or management. This, when it’s people who come up with cool ideas, implement plans, serve customers - and, yes, gather intelligence. And, note to entrepreneurs, investors invest as much - if not more - in the people as the idea. They know that the greatest idea in the world will never translate into dollars if the right people aren’t there to make it happen.
View the Blog Roll
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Last May I came up with the Reverse Peter Principle: “HR will never hire the most experienced people for a position, but instead pick those that are almost good enough”. But it doesn’t have to be that way. At my last company I had a retained HR consultant who not only put together the policies but was directly involved with the strategy of the company. It can be done.
But I’m not optimistic overall. After six interviews with a company, last week I was rejected because I was “overqualified”. I always thought it was better to hire people better than you, because it would be good for the company and over time let you be promoted. Then again, maybe I’m wrong.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:15 pm
‘cuse me, that sound is me beating my forehead on my desk. The old “overqualified” bugaboo should have gone the way of the buggy whip. In today’s fast-paced global flattened economy - seems to me “overqualified” is the only way to go. Companies should want as much brainpower as they can get, as quickly as they can get it. And, also that’s just downright stupid of a company to spend so much time interviewing you - when they should have read your resume and been able to tell if you were over qualified, under qualified or “just right.” Somehow, I don’t think Goldilocks should be a management model (And, in the original version of the tale, I seem to recall she got eaten by one of the bears.)