To think that this is the best ever sign that the HR department has lost its way!

[OnlyTheDepthVaries]

DH works for a large company. Last week he had to email his HR department asking them to change some personal information. He received this as the automatic response:
"Thank you for contacting People Services. A Support Advisor will reach out to you shortly."

Reach out?? Reach out?? Are they completely mad?? What is wrong with "contact you "?
Should I expect The Four Tops to arrive singing on my doorstep?
Surely this is utter drivel at its best.
Incidentally, this was 4 days ago - they have yet to reach out to him. Good thing it wasn't that important

squick

The sad thing is people get paid for coming up with this crap.

A support advisor from People Services is going to reach out to you shortly? WTF? Ah, HR will call .

We call them "Human Remains" department at our work.

"Reach out" implies that they will attempt contact. "Contact you" implies that the contact will be 100% successful. I really find it hard to get emotional about this crap.

"Reach out" makes it sound like there was a breakdown in communications, he flounced off or something. Like reaching out to your NC cousin or the employers trying to reach out to the unions. We might reach out to North Korea if they promise not to nuke anybody.

"Reach out" implies that they will attempt contact. "Contact you" implies that the contact will be 100% successful. I really find it hard to get emotional about this crap.

Huh? How does 'contact' even remotely imply success?

'I made several unsuccessful attempts at contacting her last week.'

'Reach out' means some sort of outreach, quite separately from just calling someone. As in, 'reaching out for help'.

My sister says 'reach out' and it's taken all my will to refrain from correcting her. In her defense, she lives in the US - the epicentre of corporate wank-speak.

I hate "stake holders" as well.

I think 'stakeholder' is neccessary - how do you describe people who are, well, stakeholders in a project/department/event/whatever but don't have any official capacity? What alternative would you use?

I much preferred Personnel, it sounds like personal so seems a bit more caring as if

Human Resources sounds like they think of staff as of the same significance as the photocopier, filing cabinet etc and that people don't matter. This is a much more accurate description obviously.

People Services sounds like they are trying to get back to the caring sounding Personnel but in a much more naff way and will probably think that staff are even more like something you find on the bottom of your shoe than currently

Every time I hear stakeholders, I think of a mob of people hunting vampires - I suspect this isn't the image it is meant to portray

Every time I hear stakeholders, I think of a mob of people hunting vampires - I suspect this isn't the image it is meant to portray.

If you worked in IT your image would probably be different.

I know of someone who is Head of People, which makes her sound like some sort of dictator. Allegedly she chose her own title.

Mmmmm.......steak.......

Apple I don't work in IT - but I'm not sure how doing so would change my mental image. I'm a senior manager in a large multinational, so I hear the term 'stakeholders' all the time.

My favourite phrase is 'senior stakeholders' - it makes me imagine a bunch of octogenarians chasing vampires...

I love "head of people" - who appointed her? Head of bipeds? Head of mammals?

Head of People. Ha ha, does she style herself HRH, keeping also HR in the title.

My favourite phrase is 'senior stakeholders' - it makes me imagine a bunch of octogenarians chasing vampires...

Bwah.

I love "head of people" - who appointed her? Head of bipeds? Head of mammals?

Hilarious.

I think 'stakeholder' is neccessary - how do you describe people who are, well, stakeholders in a project/department/event/whatever but don't have any official capacity? What alternative would you use?

I've managed to work over 30 years in legal firms, half of which were at senior managerial/employer level without ever referring to any of my employees or members of my team as a "stakeholder"

I come across the term most often in Scottish Government consultations. SG loves consulting with "stakeholders". I'm not sure how much attention they pay to the views of interested parties/parties who have an interest who respond.

I've managed to work over 30 years in legal firms, half of which were at senior managerial/employer level without ever referring to any of my employees or members of my team as a "stakeholder"

If you are organising a workshop to, let's say, start requirements gathering for a new CRM installation - how would you describe that group?

Reaching out.

My guess is it's an American company, the automatic response written by someone in the US. They haven't lost their way, they are just speaking American

Sorry to disappoint you, Aginghippy - very much a British company covering all of the UK only. That's not to say that the writer is not American - but I suspect that is not the case and this an example of utter twatism.
BeaufortBelle - I agree entirely!
Thanks to most for agreeing with me - glad I'm not alone in loathing this rubbish.

If you are organising a workshop to, let's say, start requirements gathering for a new CRM installation - how would you describe that group?

The (insert name of project) group or team. I would never use "stakeholder"

At my old work they called it "The People Team". Excruciating.

Let's just say that, as another person working for a large UK-based company, this does not surprise me at all. Our HR is completely unfit for purpose.