[wiz21c]

I totally agree. I mean, nobody cares that I agree. But I have been hurt so much by all that bullshit that readin your comment makes me better.

Now I have this question for all the HR departments who engage in spreading those "touchy feely" terms : either you do realize that there's a problem with that, then why do you go on spreading it OR you don't realize there's a problem, then why do you feel those terms are acceptable for the employees ?

I honestly ask. Because all of that looks to me as a total intellectual scam. And usually, when I think this way, either there's really a scam, either my system of values is completely at odds with reality (and I need to understand my blind spot)

[Frost1x]

>I honestly ask. Because all of that looks to me as a total intellectual scam.

Most upper corporate messaging I've seen is an intellectual scam or intellectual dishonesty (be it HR or any department), although I'd say that's putting it far too politely.

These are typically well educated and skilled individuals that aren't oblivious of reality. They have careers and want to maintain them, so they maintain the corproate narratives that work and pass responsibility for lower level managers to maintain plausible deniability as to why efforts seem disingenuous. There are strategies to any of these moves or messaging and rarely ever are they in anyone's interest but the business unless you coincidentally have interest alignment with the business.

It's a lot easier in business (perhaps in life) to strategically lie and achieve measures of success than to be honest and be successful.

I am completely and utterly cynical of any piece of information and communication passed off by corporate entities or those who have heavy sway in their control and direction. They have far too much incentive and motive to be intellectually dishonest and little-to-none to be honest. Even apparently benign information is often strategically crafted, reviewed, and re-reviewed before passed off with very carefully chosen wording. It's not until you get to the underlying employees that I have any trust in what they say.

HR honestly seems like a terrible career to me if you actually care about people in modern business environments (I couldn't do it). You're essentially powerless in terms of business decisions and more often than not act as damage control between what business management unilaterally decides to do and how it effects employees. If your goal pursuing an HR career was to improve wellbeing of employees, it seems like a career where you'd be in for quite a culture shock in most environments. Of course they also serve to maintain and smooth out other legal compliancey issues and staffing needs.

[mtberatwork]

I believe from the company's perspective it's viewed as a mechanism for reducing insurances costs.

[lazide]

The reality is that you can be arbitrarily harsh and negative , or arbitrarily positive to the point of delusion about basically any situation or set of circumstances. This isn’t theoretical, get a decent set of people (100?), put them in a specific circumstance and it’s quite apparent.

What is also apparent is that there are clearly objective differences in the ability of collections of people to thrive (or even barely cope) with the same set of circumstances based on the mindsets from the people composing the team. A good read to bring these into sharp focus is the book written on Shackleton’s voyage with the ‘Endurance’. ‘These mindsets are also clearly ‘contagious’ once they hit a certain point.

If a team hits a certain tipping point and is able to look at their circumstances and smile, it is self reinforcing. They’ll be able to face hardship productively, work together despite differences, and everyone will be better off. If no matter how good it is, they’re going to be miserable - that is also self reinforcing. It will be miserable for everyone, and the only people who stay will be those who feel at home in misery.

Being miserable is also associated with worse health, personal relationship issues, higher insurance costs, absenteeism, turnover, difficulty retaining key talent, etc.

The company wants (and often needs) people that work hard regardless of the circumstances, that will find a way to make a situation positive and productive, etc. This can be abused. Even when not abused, the company needs people who can tackle problems to solve customer needs to survive (quite plainly).

If a company is well managed, they are able to make this a mutually beneficial situation without it lapsing into co-dependence or abuse on either side. Not very many companies are well managed. Partially because it is really hard, partially because American culture doesn’t seem to value or recognize proper management skills and the importance they have.

Covid has turned the screws and also pushed a lot of people into negative territory. This means a lot of companies that were near a tipping point before are now clearly over it - as are a whole lot of people.

[duckfang]

It's also a great way to garner fake empathy and "create" a better working environment than you really have. People with lower/average mental faculties are more susceptible to these kinds of doublespeak.

Its like those oil commercials of "We care, we really do", showing a few ducks being wiped off from some horrid oil spill disaster, and doing nothing to solve the root cause.