Why in IT do not like HR managers?

Immediately make a reservation with "IT" I mean, all people connected, one way or another, in working with Information Technologies, whether it is a Web studio, or a development company, etc.

Introductory

This is my (HR manager) attempt to look beyond the barricades. In my practice I met the following opinions (I exaggerated them a bit):

1. We need a HR manager as a personnel provider (i.e. a recruiter);
2. The personnel manager does not understand the essence of the vacancy, we need it to collect papers (employment records, etc.) and to monitor the availability of coffee, tea, sugar, cleaners and a secretary in the office;
3. The personnel officer who is he at all? Why do we need it? The accountant will take the papers, and the project manager will pick up the project, and the system of motivation will be even less important for him;
4. And we have a personnel officer (personnel manager): carries out the initial selection, maintains personnel document flow, but we do not dedicate it to the company's development strategy.
5. * There are a few more options, but, as described above, the main ones. I can also add a painful one for me: “We need a girl personnel manager to decorate the company!” At the same time, the level of knowledge is ignored, and most often we get option number 2

General description of the problem: IT managers often do not see the function of working with staff, real business support, but consider it only as a necessary evil that can be used somehow (such as tea / coffee in stock or primary selection, rather screenings, candidates and etc.). There are many reasons for this and, most likely, in most cases this absence: a) a really urgent need for it; b) broad specialists in the field of personnel management; and c) a clear idea of ​​what work with staff is (usually the result of a lack of time).

I want to consider each option and note the reasons for this scenario:

We need a HR manager as a personnel provider (i.e. a recruiter).
This is logical when the company grows and projects more than people. But at a certain moment (most likely when the state passes for 15 people, and then continues to grow further. We must begin to build a system that would cover every step of a still candidate, starting from getting acquainted with the company's vacancy, interviewing, presenting employees to a new team member etc. Otherwise, new people will fall into a vacuum.This is what the system is when every step is verified and foreseen by you. And importantly, the personnel management system does not end when a person left the company, it’s just important that he will talk It is about you as an employer.
The personnel manager does not understand the essence of the vacancy, we need it to collect pieces of paper (employment records, etc.) and to monitor the presence of coffee, tea, sugar, cleaners and a secretary in the office.
It seems that there is nothing wrong with that, but the selection takes a lot of time. And to take this time away from the work of the Project Manager, in my opinion, is not excusable luxury, because Often in the company at the same time there is more than one project, the work of the personnel manager will pay off with interest.
The personnel officer who is he at all? Why do we need it? The accountant will be engaged in paperwork, and the project manager will pick up the project, and the system of motivation will be even less important for him.
I am a supporter of the division of labor. If an employee switches his attention to different tasks, then from 15 to 30% of the time is spent on the fact of switching, i.e. comprehension and preparation. How much time do your universal workers lose? How much are your universal workers? An accountant who is involved in drafting employment contracts, monitoring labor standards and compliance with all of these norms is much more expensive than an accountant who monitors only the RBSU and tax law.
And we have a personnel officer (personnel manager): carries out the initial selection, maintains personnel document flow, but we do not dedicate it to the company's development strategy.
I agree, it may not be necessary, but the personnel manager, as I wrote, is primarily business support, whose task is to support the development of the company, namely, to draw up a plan for hiring employees (if you can talk about it at all in terms of personnel diets), but this necessary. Then, again, building the organizational structure does not begin when you have employees above the roof, but from the very beginning, because each in its place is 50% success.
The main personnel management system should be, and the system should be scalable both in “+” when you grow and projects above the roof, and in “-” when you have to part. This should be handled by experts, not anyhow.

The main areas of work with the staff of which the system is built:

• HR Administration
• Recruitment, staff assessment
• Compensation and benefits (motivation policy)
• Staff training and development

I would very much like this post to be useful for you. Managers do not like additional expenses at all, and HR is an additional support from which the manager, sometimes, considers it possible to refuse, it’s actually important not to allow strategic mistakes at the stage of company formation.
This is my opinion, which I am ready to discuss.

---

I can offer my services as a specialist in the field of work with personnel. Namely, setting personnel records, creating all the necessary documents, issuing orders, drafting and signing labor contracts, developing internal labor regulations, etc.
In addition, I have experience in developing a system of employee motivation, i.e. I can offer the best solutions for your budget. If you do not have the opportunity, I can organize a primary selection of candidates.
I know all the areas of work of the HR Manager and I understand IT well; I can take on any projects.