SC:NOT HR Math

I'm the somewhat ashamed owner of an HR textbook.

This book is required for me to pass an HRM topic which is required for my degree. I would under normal circumstances grit my teeth and bare through the lashings of painfully misunderstood terms and liberal applications of the term "dynamic" were it not for the execrable level of mathematics and blatant disregard for editorial procedure that came with it.

The misuse of mathematics starts innocently with absurdly undefinable variables as one would expect from those whose academic attainment in the area extends to year 8. For example in chapter 4 we are given some dubious equations notable only for their absurdities such as:

New HR = New output/Old output x old HR

Given such an explicitly definable term as "new HR" further definition appears to be of limited use, however our diligent editors decide it necessary;

New HR = Change in productivity x (old HR/Old output)

I decided to follow these two equations through by setting them equal to each other (they are both expressions for New HR) to see what I could find:

ΔPx(Old HR/Old Output) = Old HR(New Output/Old Output) = New HR

by removing repeated factors we get

ΔProductivity = New Output

But the change in productivity is the new output subtract the old output is it not?

New Output - Old Output = New Output

Does this not mean that "Old Output" must necessarily be zero? Does this not mean that both the expressions for NHR given in the textbook (above) are mathematically undefinable as they each have a fraction whose denominator is zero?

Obviously the only suitable explanation is that a change in some factor is not the difference between them (i.e. NOP - OOP = ΔP), it seems that throughout my schooling I has been misled as to the nature of the term "change in". As soon as I complete this post I must be sure to send an e-mail to the editors of this textbook thanking them for correcting such a grievous error on my part.

The mathematics gets more educational further down the page when we are confronted with the somewhat questionable equation;

Labour wastage = No. of leavers in period/ x 100%

Before you ask I shall answer; I did not forget to place the denominator of the fraction in the equation but rather, none was provided in the textbook. You see, it seems that we are on the precipice of a fantastic scientific discovery! The ability to transcend mathematics and divide an integer by zero! Behold! What times we live in gentlemen!

Chapter 11 holds more treasures of knowledge. Such as this;

[(320x7)/160]x[(160x100)/1] = 8.75%

(Though I fail to see the point in dividing by one)

Unless my calculator is mistaken I believe the answer is actually a slightly higher 224,000%. Interesting, as this is supposed to represent time absent from work as a percentage of total time at work. I think this represents chucking the meta-sickie, encompassing 2,240 dimensions of slack - this may be of some use to church of the subgenius.

The final equation I read before I was overcome with nausea at the sighting of the term "behaviour costing" was:

Incidence rate = (NIIx200,000)/THW

where; NII = Number of Injuries or illnesses THW = Total Hours Worked by all employees

The addition of the 200,000 number puzzled me. The mystery of it's inclusion was resolved as I gazed on the note at the bottom of the page:

"(Note: 200,000 equals the base for 100 employees working 40 hour weeks, 50 weeks a year)"

For a split second it made sense, before I realised that this base was 100x40x50; i.e. the total hours worked by all employees. Again removing arbitrary factors we get another absurd position:

Incidence rate = total number of incidences?

I have just sat the exam for this topic and I would wager that I have answered their questions better than they could, but even as this textbook fades into the past and is added to a list of uni subjects I've not gained from I can't help but feel that there is some universal constant out of sync with the universe somewhere because, as you see, these people still have jobs.

Alan Nakervis - Curtin University of Technology Robert Compton - Australian Catholic University Marian Baird - University of Sydney

And I do not.

Dr. Boy