Comments on: Wanted: “People-Effective” Person for $197,000 Job

By: xyz

xyz — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:06:53 +0000

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

By: Adeyb

Adeyb — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:44:21 +0000

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…

By: Tempscire

Tempscire — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:01:57 +0000

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.

By: Video Game Dork

Video Game Dork — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:13:35 +0000

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.

By: Video Game Dork

Video Game Dork — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:08:42 +0000

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.

By: Mytake

Mytake — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:12:14 +0000

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.

By: Kalel

Kalel — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:42:21 +0000

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.

By: laly

laly — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:10:05 +0000

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

By: Edward

Edward — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:34:50 +0000

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.

By: Steeliecat

Steeliecat — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:43:33 +0000

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.

By: mu

mu — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:20:34 +0000

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.

By: Jill Harness

Jill Harness — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:11:34 +0000

I’ve been in the business world too long I think…most of that made sense to me.