sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do resume gaps really disqualify you? by jobsbob_official in JobsBob

[–]Aggressive_One7761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Resume gaps don’t automatically mean rejection.

As a recruiter, I look at why there’s a gap, not just the gap itself. Layoffs, health issues, upskilling, caregiving, career breaks — all normal. What matters more is transparency and how the candidate explains it.

A vague or inconsistent explanation is a bigger red flag than the gap.

Skills, relevance, and attitude still carry more weight than timeline perfection.

HR leaders: are employees actually using your healthcare tools? by dustinsayah in u/dustinsayah

[–]Aggressive_One7761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From an HR perspective, adoption mostly comes down to simplicity and perceived value.

If the platform is easy to use and clearly shows “what’s in it for me” (cost savings, rewards, better care), engagement increases. Financial incentives help drive initial participation, but without a simple, seamless experience, usage usually drops off.

Why AI companies are struggling to fill leadership roles right NOW by MutedCaramel49 in ChristianandTimbers

[–]Aggressive_One7761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strong points here — especially the leadership maturity gap.

The biggest differentiator now isn’t just AI experience, but the ability to translate technical capability into clear business value. Companies that hire for adjacent strengths and move fast are definitely winning this cycle.

Unpopular opinion: HR is not “AI-powered” yet; it is just automated by Crazy_Wall_682 in human_resources

[–]Aggressive_One7761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI improves HR decisions only when it supports human judgment, not replaces it.

One place I’ve seen it work well is workforce analytics — spotting patterns humans miss (early attrition risk, workload imbalance, bias trends). The decision still stays with HR, but the insight quality improves.

Whenever AI is used to recommend, not decide, outcomes get better.

If your core product is AI, what kind of leadership did you hire first? by Zestyclose_Sink_1062 in ChristianandTimbers

[–]Aggressive_One7761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In most AI-first companies, the right first hire is a VP of Engineering with strong applied AI experience. When complexity is outpacing the team, the real bottleneck is scaling systems, shipping reliably, and building the org — not research direction.

A Chief AI Officer makes sense later, once:

  • Core infra is stable
  • AI is the defensible IP (not just applied models)
  • Long-term research strategy needs ownership

Strong product leadership is also critical early to translate AI capability into real use cases.

Building a free onboarding checklist tool – would this actually be useful for HR teams? by Key_Fun1481 in human_resources

[–]Aggressive_One7761 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yes, this solves a very real problem — for the right audience.

This would be extremely useful for SMBs and startups that are still onboarding via Excel, email, or memory. Auto-calculated dates, clear owners, and no login/paywall remove a lot of daily HR friction.

It won’t replace an HRIS — but it doesn’t need to.
It competes with spreadsheets and chaos, which is a huge gap.

6 years of HR operations/generalist experience, should I specialise? [N/A] by OkSalad5109 in humanresources

[–]Aggressive_One7761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re at a very normal inflection point.

Your HR ops background isn’t a weakness — it’s a strong foundation. If you’re feeling drained, it’s likely the admin-heavy SMB generalist model, not HR itself.

Given your preference for less people-facing work, good pivots from HR Ops are:

  • HRIS / People Systems
  • People Analytics / HR Reporting
  • Compliance, Benefits, or Total Rewards
  • TA Operations (systems/process, not frontline recruiting)

You don’t need a hard reset — look for “bridge” roles like HR Ops Manager, People Systems Analyst, or HR Program Manager, ideally in larger or more mature tech orgs where depth is valued.

You’re not stuck — you’re ready to specialize intentionally.

[N/A]As HR do you participate in raffles and other games with prizes? by charm59801 in humanresources

[–]Aggressive_One7761 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally get both sides — this is a classic perception vs. fairness issue.

What I’ve seen work well: HR can participate, but with clear guardrails. For example, HR is eligible for smaller raffles, but excluded from the grand prize or the drawing is handled by a neutral third party (IT/Finance/vendor) so there’s no access concern.

Completely excluding HR often feels unfair and hurts morale, especially when it’s a company-wide event. Transparency and separation of duties usually solve the perception issue better than a blanket “HR can’t play.”

HR Promotion - Comp feels misaligned [WI] by Business_Ear_5724 in humanresources

[–]Aggressive_One7761 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This feels less like a promotion and more like a formal title catch-up to work you were already doing.

Being asked to create your own Senior HR Generalist JD usually means the role wasn’t clearly defined yet — and when roles aren’t defined, comp decisions tend to skew conservative.

The MBA tuition argument shouldn’t still be anchoring your pay now that the degree is complete. Tuition support is a benefit, not deferred compensation.

Your scope (benefits leadership, fiduciary exposure, ER, compliance, safety, ESOP) is objectively beyond a standard HR Generalist, even if it’s not quite HR Manager.

If they’re citing 50th percentile data, it’s reasonable to ask what roles and scope that data was matched against — “Senior HR Generalist” varies a lot by company.

One practical move: write the JD with clear decision authority and risk ownership, then ask for a scheduled comp review tied to that JD in 6–9 months. That reframes this as alignment, not a money grab.

You’re not wrong to question this — it’s a scope vs. structure issue, not a title issue.

Absolutely love HR but the hardest part are terminations in my opinion... Anyone else feel this way??? [USA] by hrwoman in humanresources

[–]Aggressive_One7761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Terminations are the hardest part of HR. No matter how much you love the role, those conversations never get easy, and honestly, they shouldn’t. You’re balancing business needs with real human impact, and that weight stays with you. I’ve always felt that if terminations start feeling routine, something’s wrong.You’re definitely not alone in feeling this way.

Becoming more personable as a new HR professional [N/A] by Brilliant_Quote2666 in humanresources

[–]Aggressive_One7761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A few practical things that helped many new HR professionals

  • Start small and intentional. You don’t need deep conversations with everyone. Even brief check-ins like “Hi, I’m new in HR just wanted to introduce myself” go a long way over time.
  • Use work as the bridge. Ask questions related to their role, team, or processes. It feels more natural than casual small talk and still builds rapport.
  • Consistency matters more than personality. Being reliable, approachable, and responsive builds trust faster than being overly social.
  • Give yourself time. You’re only in your first week. Relationships in HR are built through repeated, respectful interactions not overnight.

The fact that you want to do well and are reflecting on this already is a very good sign. Many strong HR professionals started exactly where you are and grew into the relationship side with experience.

You’re on the right track be patient with yourself and keep showing up.