Human resources management in engineering firms 7

[sayee1]

This is a post not related to engineering or engineers but related in a way. Do we need to have engineers with a post graduate education in HRM handling this key function for Engineering firms at least? I have worked in four different functions in four companies, sales, marketing, production and enabling(QC) functions. I have always found the understanding of the personnel handling HRM sadly lacking in many of the requirements leading to an exodus of good engineers from the firms I worked with. Some key issues like appraisal systems, professional education/ certification, can be better handled by engineers with an understanding of that industry and a HRM background! The turnaround of engineers(good ones) from a Company can be a set back to the Company, especially after the mentors have spent sufficient time and efforts in developing that engineer to a level where he/she has just started being useful in his/her work for the Company and then having that engineer leave means starting all over again. This in course of time effects the thinking of the mentor in such a way that he/she starts feeling a problem in continuing to mentor anyone else with the same levels of commitment. Unlike other industries, the true assets of an engineering firm are the employees(Thats just my thought). Reducing exodus of skilled and good engineers is a major task facing many good firms.(Of course we have on the other hand retrenchment by many companies because of the economic considerations of the current day world...). We also had till the year but last, industries like software attracting engineers due to various HR policies leading to better pay/work environments. Thanks and regards
Sayee Prasad R
Ph: 0097143968906
Mob: 00971507682668
End of all knowledge is the attainment of immortality!

 

[brad]

Ideally, yet. However, I have yet to meet a HR person with an engineering background nor an engineer who aspires to HR. HR in its focus, requirements, and daily work is rather antithetical to the work which "engineers" do, hence nobody in the engineer field in any way desires to make that transition.

If you find somebody who TRULY knows engineering (as opposed to somebody who got their 4-year degree then their MBA), they would potentially be a very good HR person. My caustic comment: I don't consider somebody with a BS in engineering and a few years experience who has trotted back and gotten their MBA an "engineer". The experience (of several years), and not degree alone, makes one an engineer.

Brad

 

[sayee1]

Brad,
If you find somebody who TRULY knows engineering (as opposed to somebody who got their 4-year degree then their MBA), they would potentially be a very good HR person. I agree 100% with this comment but the problem in todays worl is so much of importance on specialisations. Imagine a scenario where you are say the MD of an engineering firm, would you select an engineer with no qualification in HR or would a prefer a non engineer with a specialization in HR? Most would go for the second option, I believe!
Thanks and regards
Sayee Prasad R
Ph: 0097143968906
Mob: 00971507682668
End of all knowledge is the attainment of immortality!

 

[GregLocock]

Why would a good engineer make a good HR droid? I can't see any match at all. Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[sayee1]

Greg
The point is not that a good engineer will make a good HR droid but that a good engineer (with HR PG education maybe)would make a better HR for the engineering industry than a non engineer with a HR background!
;-) Thanks and regards
Sayee Prasad R
Ph: 0097143968906
Mob: 00971507682668
End of all knowledge is the attainment of immortality!

 

[GregLocock]

Nope, don't see it. No commited engineer would be much interested in HR, no professional HR dude would waste time doing an engineering degree. I think you are trying to justify a position that you have found yourself in rather than arguing from axioms.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[sayee1]

Greg,
Interesting turn of point, "you are trying to justify a position that you have found yourself in rather than arguing from axioms"? I am not in a HR position and neither do I aspire to be in such a position. I am successful in my own way as a welding engineer and that is my core competency at the moment, would love to become better in core competency by doing a PGrad in welding someday, at the moment satisfied in picking up a few more years of useful experience in welding. The reason why I started this thread was because of my experiences with the HR departments in my short career. Beleive me, I have worked in five differnt firms in three countries and my experience led me to think this way. I wanted to see if anyone else shares the thought or has something to add to this thought, thats why I posted this thread. You are welcome to your opinion which I know must be backed by years of experience in wherever you worked (based on your other replies to other posts).

Thanks and regards
Sayee Prasad R

End of all knowledge is the attainment of immortality!

 

[brad]

Greg--essentially my point (although not as clearly made as you did). I'd love to have HR people more fully appreciate what engineers do, but they can't short of doing our work, and what engineer wants to be an HR guy?

Brad

 

[GregLocock]

Wow, I must have been feeling grumpy when I wrote the previous note. Sorry, Sayee, I 'm usually a bit more diplomatic than that.

Here's a positive suggestion. Sit down with the HR people and try and find out why their policies are failing to keep the people you need in the company. This will take quite a while since usually engineers whine about pay , when asked, since that is a neat way of keeping score, and don't like to feel they are being taken advantage of. But the people you don't want to lose aren't much motivated by money. They are possibly bored, or frustrated, or can't see a career path, or they don't get trained properly (etc etc). You may even find that it isn't an HR policy issue at all, it could easily be a management one.

I am told that exit interviews are borderline useless, so your next step could be some 'free ranging' discussions with the sort of engineer who you regard as a high risk of leaving.

To be honest I've only twice worked in a company where engineers were respected as professionals, most of the time I just feel like a Dilbert cartoon.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[NiceMike]

I don’t think that lack of respect is limited to engineers, in my experience any educated or skilled professional is treated poorly by many companies. To quote a past “boss”, he said “I can hire anyone off the street to do your job.”

The best places I have worked were the smallest. When you fill a significant position in a small outfit, then the man in charge notices when you are not there. You get respect because your efforts are easier to notice. We are just peas in a pod in most large organizations. It still is not good business, but who is there to make it a good business?

If I were to run my own business, there would be a very strict set of core polices. Tolerance is necessary, but with guidance people should be able to do better than many of the situations that you see. Saving money always seems to be an excuse, then the money saved is spent ten fold to fix the problems that resulted... Don’t humans ever learn? Looking at history, I guess not.

Where is Business going in the Next 5 Years? If they could avoid having engineers, you know they would!


Michael John Lake

http://www.NiceMike.com

 

[sayee1]

Greg/Brad/Mike,
Point noted and I agree, like all human beings I was trying to find a solution to a problem without tackling the root causes of my frustration. I do agree that rathre than have engineers running HR functions, HR and engineers should liase closely to get the best out of the engineers involved. Rathre than have an engineer in a HR post, the key issues which prompted me "pseudo engineers" for one needs to be discussed with them and tackled. A star each for your thoughts which made me see some light Thanks and regards
Sayee Prasad R
Ph: 0097143968906
Mob: 00971507682668
End of all knowledge is the attainment of immortality!

 

[quark]

Once I had been through the same situation. When I refused to do a technical work through his non technical views my boss said "there are people queuing at the gate".

I said "you are most welcome sir, but what do your boss say?". Ironically he declared me as better engineer at the time of his exit from the company. It all depends upon how long you can put up the fight.

I fundamentally don't trust the idea of pseudo engineers, non technical managers etc. Most of the times we don't see this as a problem (at the time of changing a company) If we don't have any problem at one company then why do we change? If the problems are worse we want to change and then build up 'let's see' attitude.

Finally I never consider HRD as a functional group. They all are buggers and the department is useless.

 

[chubPE]

"Finally I never consider HRD as a functional group. They all are buggers and the department is useless. "

Comments like that are exactly why engineers are seen as ignorant when dealing with executive management issues. Human Resource Management becomes a very important role as successful businesses become larger. Maintaining consistent policies, regulating retirement planning, hiring searches, handling employee issues, complaints, health… etc. This becomes a very large job and is much more complex that you simple engineers know.

Anyone that makes the statement I have posted above is so completely ignorant, I would be surprised if he got along with anyone in top management. To disrespect any department within any specific company is unprofessional and uncalled for.

 

[BobPE]

chubPE:

I think you hit on something there, engineers are ingornant, of a lot of things. I have worked for firms that put engineers in charge of HR and that was a disaster becuase they were ingorant too, and too cheap to admit they needed to pay a professional HR to do the job, and too proud to admit that an HR had valuable skills that an engineer didn't understand.

I think a big part of the problem is that engineers can talk to other engineers whereas an HR may find that difficult if not impossible to do. I think that may be an important clue for the very first posting in that maybe an engineer with an HR degree would be better able to understand how to communicate with other engineers in management. But I would also agree with the others that posted, you wouldnt find me in HR!!!! LOL

BobPE

 

[GregLocock]

I don't want to sound like I've been reading "Getting to yes" (because I haven't), but try putting yourself in the HR guy's shoes.

He wants

low staff turnover
happy workforce
rapid filling of vacant positions

You want the same. Some noise in the system is preventing this.

His other aims that you don't care about are:

enforce company regs
control employment costs
and presumably a whole lot more

Your aims that he doesn't understand:

work with interesting competent engineers on exciting projects that come to fruition and maybe are even successful commercially



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[NiceMike]

Sayee/Greg/Brad/quark/everyone else,

Seems like personalities get the blame for HR/Engineering conflict and “questionable management”.

I will admit questioning why I was a technically minded “geek” as a teenager. Computers, physics, and other “things” usually did not put you through the seemingly irrational **** that many stupid, but popular, peers would put you through. I have gotten a little stupid and lazy myself as an adult, and now I even understand the motives for stupid and irrational behavior. (Hell, in the right place, at the right time, it can be both fun and useful!)

Anyhow, I think that the end results are important. To this end, an “Introduction to Economics” class had the strongest effect on my business views. There is a variable of money, but a variables of taste and safety are also in the equation. (Are there any Economics Engineers?)

Economics is the base argument that I have against some of the things that have annoyed me by business. A phrase used by engineers and maintenance in my last job was that “The company will leap over a dollar to save a penny!” (Sadly, it was true!) You can not blame HR for that type of “group-think”.

As an engineer, you could prove or disprove a process by simulation, or comparison under different conditions. How much effort do most managers put into sound and valid cost analysis? As a manager of a maintenance management system, I could see where our plant was wasting money. I had reports and data. The plant manager did not seem to care, so why did they even have me doing that job? If that same plant manager saw unauthorized charges to his credit card, would he ignore them as insignificant also? Where is the difference?

It almost seems like thinking is a handicap, because those who do not take the time to think get ahead. Then I feel better when those same people get into trouble like I could never imagine. HR and management, as mentioned earlier, just seem to get caught up in these issues more than engineers and other technical people. Technology does not usually have problems with the irrational behavior that us humans do.

Michael J. Lake
NiceMike.com

 

[uppili11]

Very intersting.Let us understand the function of HRD.In most of the companied the main task is how to hire people,fixing compensation,and ensute the labour turnover is limited.The most important requirement of HRD WHICH IS SADLY FORGOTTEN:HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL TO MOVE FROM:

MANAGE BY TASKS OR INSTRUCTION
MANAGE BY OBJECTIVES AND ULTIMATELY HOW AN INDIVIDUAL MANAGES ALL HIS ACTIVITIES BY VALUES.

THE REAL HR ACTIVITIES ARE NOW OUTSOURCED !!!!WHICH SHOULD BE ACTUALLY DONE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTROLLING OPERATIONS AND NOT BY ANY SEPARATE DEPT.WHICH WILL NOT YIELD ANY RESULT.

 

[PSE]

In my experience, the HR individual was simply a conduit for the available talent pool. The real decisions on hiring a technical professional were made within the department having the open position. HR filtered resume's according to the job description and forwarded possible candidates to the appropriate department heads. The decision to hire rested solely with that department. From that stage on HR assumed the standard role in terms of dealing with non-technical orientation training, benefits sign up etc. I have not encountered a situation where I felt that an HR individual with a technical background would be beneficial. Perhaps if someone wanted to be a "head hunter" and make money placing people in technical positions.

 

[NiceMike]

PSE,

I guess it is easy to look at things the wrong way, because of not knowing what is going on behind closed doors. You are right, and made me realize a more significant issue, or “cause”, of the difficulties discussed earlier in this thread.

In the case that I am thinking of, a “pseudo-engineer” worked his way up to head engineer. (So I am told). He hires his replacement, who seemed to have more difficulty then the original head engineer. While this is happening, all the “engineers” under the head engineer are either “good frustrated engineers” or pseudo engineers. The end result being an atmosphere that did not seem very efficient or productive.

(I dare say that they could have fired all of the plant engineers, and the maintenance department would have likely kept the plant in as good of shape without them. Not that these were bad people, it was a “poorly engineered” staffing setup.)

The one thing that I learned from the army is that how you “engineer” your staff is as important as the equipment that you have. Too little structure creates a “free for all” while too much structure can smother productivity. Going towards either extreme is bad. There should be a formula for optimum staff structure? (I should check, are there “Organizational Engineers” who can use the power of engineering math to better organize a business? A Process Engineer has some of these duties, however, I am considering engineering of personnel at the corporate level on down...)

I would have to look it up, but Isaac Asmov’s “Robot” series of books was based on the work of a man who engineered a way to rebuild society in hundreds of years instead of thousands. It may be science fiction, but the idea that engineering could do better than current business and political views is an interesting one. Might not work because most productive engineers are also very ethical, and you notice what type of people often end up on top...


Michael John Lake
nicemike.com

 

[sayee1]

PSE/Mike
I agreed in my post earlier that I was looking at it the wrong way and thats why this discussion was so good to me.
PSE"the HR individual was simply a conduit for the available talent pool. The real decisions on hiring a technical professional were made within the department having the open position." I agree 100% to this and thats what my experience is too! "From that stage on HR assumed the standard role in terms of dealing with non-technical orientation training, benefits sign up etc." But thats the entry point you have discussed. Now many companies I know have very good appraisl systems. Some companies even have 360 degrees apprisal systems. But the Companies I worked with failed in this HR function. Invariably I ended up working under superiors who start feeling me being a threat to their existence rather than a key pillar to their department! The result: No further training, no rotation of job functions, no key functions( I got shifted to a dept where I am no longer in the limelight and view of others in the yard) Now these frustrations were not understood by the HR reps in the Company and they let my frustrations grow. That eventually led me and many others like me resign from my earlier jobs! Once I resign everyone wants me to stay back, gives me promises of all that I thought was relevant! Now why ccouldn't the key issues leading to frustrations that amount to so much of employee turnover be identified early by the HR? Isn't that their key function too! That's why I felt that maybe engineers with HR specialisation would do better! But I agree that this is surely a wromg thought process! HR personnel are happy with whtever they are, whatever they do or don't with their blinkers(like the horses) on! and it irks me to see so many really good engineers really frustrated when the HR really can resolve those key issues! At the outet I think maybe I'll get a brainstorming session with these engineers and pen down some key issues and bring it to the notice of the management/HR! Maybe I'll just work on a simple questionnaire which I'll circulate related to these key issues and further see whats the general understanding! and then analyse these replies and see if anyone comes up with sugeestions! Thanks and regards
Sayee Prasad R
Ph: 0097143968906
Mob: 00971507682668
End of all knowledge is the attainment of immortality!