Wanted: "People-Effective" Person for $197,000 Job

Posted by Alex in Book & Lit, Money & Finance on June 27, 2009 at 1:23 pm


Psst, want a £119,000 job? (That’s US$197,000 for us Yanks) The job of "Director of Organisation Development" in Yorkshire can be yours … if only you can decipher the want ad:

Huddersfield-based Kirklees Council’s job description mangled the language with phrases like "cross functional experience" and "people effective".

The council advertised the position as "a key leadership role that will help make a complex organisation increasingly confident, energetic and focused as it delivers the outcomes that the Kirklees communities require".

It said the successful candidate would be "a leader with presence, passion and panache" who would "play a key role in ensuring the effective integration of national, regional and local drivers".

Another impenetrable passage warns that the new director will face the challenge of making sure "that the diversity of Kirklees is understood by all in the organisation; is valued as a strength but a strength that challenges us to respond to its complex implications; and is reflected in the career structures within the organisation".

Link


Previous post
this post? Please Email this               
Next post

Tags: , , ,


FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:


COMMENT

12 comments to "Wanted: "People-Effective" Person for $197,000 Job"

  1. Jill Harness
    June 27th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    I've been in the business world too long I think...most of that made sense to me. :(

  2. mu
    June 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    If you make the job specs ambiguous enough then you can hire the person/friend/crony that you're creating the job for, then no one can call you corrupt for it. Or maybe I'm just cynical.

  3. Steeliecat
    June 27th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Honestly, it's not all that different from what I have to translate very day at my job... I'm a translator for the federal government in Canada, human resources department... Fabulously ambiguous.

  4. Edward
    June 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    I am with Jill. Made sense to me. Just because You (O.K., not *you*, but that guy over there) does not understand something does not mean it is unintelligible.

  5. laly
    June 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    I think that the most qualified person for this job is the one who wrote the want ad.

  6. Kalel
    June 27th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    Yes, perfectly understandable if you read it, and not just scan it.

    I find it humorous that "people effective" is singled out. They are not asking you to be "people-effective"; Rather, they are simply asking that you support a culture that can make people effective in their jobs.

  7. Mytake
    June 28th, 2009 at 2:12 am

    Nonsensical newspeak typical of the current Zeitgeist in Britain.

    Whoever wrote and whoever greenlighted this ridiculous jargon-filled drivel should be punished for failing to communicate clearly with the taxpayers who help pay for their salaries.

  8. Video Game Dork
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:08 am

    I made perfect sense to me. They want you to be a good manager, keep subordinates happy and motivated, allocate people to tasks efficiently, and (perhaps, as subtext) not provoke a prejudice-based lawsuit.

  9. Video Game Dork
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:13 am

    Although, I do have to agree with the sentiment of over-obfuscation. It could be stated much more simply. Its indicitive of a mindset problem (one that that workplace probably has), and that is: using filler-techniques make somethink look like you put more work into it, but there is no added substance.

    Its like what school students do pad their page/word count on a writing assignment. Workplaces would be more efficient if they beat (figuratively) that habit out of whatever employees displayed it.

  10. Tempscire
    June 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am

    Disappointing. I was expecting this to be like one of those billboards with a complex equation on it and the message, "If you can solve this, we're interested in you." That wasn't particularly confusing.

  11. Adeyb
    June 29th, 2009 at 10:44 am

    I think you've missed the point. Speaking as someone who lives in Huddersfield and knows of people who have lost their jobs within Kirkless due to 'cost cutting' it seems a smack in the face to them to see such a position offered when the same money could fill 5 or 6 other more productive/worthwhile employments (the average wage in Huddersfield is £20 to £30k a year).

    Glad to see that the MP's aren't the only ones wasting my hard earned taxes...

  12. xyz
    June 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    This all makes perfect sense to me, but then again I work in a Talent and Organization Development dept.


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS