Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a hiring manager, I frequently find my own candidates and only after vetting them to some degree, I pass their info on to HR for formal application in our system. I've basically already made the hiring decision when I do this. I have found it to be the best way to get good candidates in the door, especially when I need someone quickly. Boy does it really **** off HR though.
"Excusing unprofessional behavior. Soliciting far more applicants than HR can process properly results in unprofessional HR behavior, angry applicants and damage to corporate reputations. HR routinely suggests that the high volume of applicants it must process "explains" its rude behavior--while it expects job applicants to adhere to strict rules of professional conduct."
And that rude behavior is routinely displayed by HR in this very forum on a near daily basis. They demand respect and polite treatment, but yet does not show it in return.
Absolutely agree. Some people hold a double standard over the employee/employer dichotomy.
The difference here is that I can admit when an employee does something blatantly wrong against their employer. Go ahead HR/Managers/Employers, post one of your examples on here about an unruly employee. I consider myself balanced enough to say, "hey, what that employee did was not right and they deserved the punishment they received". OTOH, some folks, no matter how obvious the injustice, cannot stand the idea that an employer may have done something wrong towards an employee. It also goes the other way, with some folks thinking that employers are the evil Sith lords of the corporate world only doing injustice towards their employees. Either way, any time you consistently take an extreme stance on an issue, most likely you are a bound to be wrong at one time or another. It's all about having balance.
And that rude behavior is routinely displayed by HR in this very forum on a near daily basis. They demand respect and polite treatment, but yet does not show it in return.
Probably because the few HR people in this forum are constantly bashed and belittled on a daily basis by people who blame them directly for being unemployed. If I were in HR, I would likely be a bit defensive in this forum as well.
For each opening, I get 20+ filtered resumes from HR from which I select 5-6 to interview. If I can't get 5-6 qualified candidates, I simply ask HR to get me more. If I had 5-6 openings to fill, I've no time to sift through hundreds of resumes or source the candidates myself. I've used external recruiters before and, IME, they're no more effective than in-house recruiters.
For each opening, I get 20+ filtered resumes from HR from which I select 5-6 to interview. If I can't get 5-6 qualified candidates, I simply ask HR to get me more. If I had 5-6 openings to fill, I've no time to sift through hundreds of resumes or source the candidates myself. I've used external recruiters before and, IME, they're no more effective than in-house recruiters.
For technical positions like scientist, IT specialist, network admin, if the manager who understands the field and the job doesn't have time to sift through resumes for qualified candidates he/she is probably better off going to a recruiter who specializes in placements in that particular field rather than handing it off to a clueless HR generalist who will use a dumb computer program or base their decission on retarded stuff like how they anwser typical interview questions or even worse start doing crap like this...
Quote:
Lifetime Accomplishments-Writing Assignment
It is the desire of Fujifilm to explore to the fullest degree possible a potential employee’s strength, weaknesses, talents and gifts. Furthermore, it is our belief that a person should be suited to a job in which they can use their unique strengths and gifts during the majority of their working hours.
A person’s strengths, talents and gifts have usually been consistently displayed in one’s life since early childhood up to present day. These unique characteristics are often best seen through the multiple significant accomplishments, achievements, events or situations in an individual’s life.
Your challenge is to think back in your life, from the earliest points possible to the present moment, and write a short narrative on two significant memories that have in common something you did well and enjoyed doing. Also, explain each of these memories as outlined below. If you have any questions about this, please ask, because this exercise largely influences our evaluation of every prospective employee.
Please follow these directions:
1. Name and describe the specific memory (i.e., experience, achievement, accomplishment, etc.) and your approximate age at the time.
2. State what you remember about the details surrounding this memory.
3. Each narrative should have in common that it was something that you did well and enjoyed doing. Both characteristics (did well and enjoyed doing) must have been present. Both are necessary because often in life we achieve significant accomplishments, but our heart really was not in it, and we really did not enjoy
doing it. Please pay careful attention to these criteria.
4. Describe why this event or accomplishment was so significant in helping you understand your strengths, talents and “gifts”.
5. Describe why it so enjoyable.
Below is a real life example from another person’s Lifetime Accomplishments.
An executive recalled one of her favorite memories as a child growing up on a farm. Apparently, one day she found a bird in the barnyard that had a broken wing. She remembered taking thread and wrapping it around the bird’s broken wing.
Over several weeks she nurtured the bird, both feeding it and ensuring that the wing was healing correctly. Her greatest joy came on the day when she was able to go in the barnyard, throw the bird up in the air, and see it fly away.
Do you know what this executive’s job is today? She is a highly skilled, corporate turn-around artist. She is an expert in fixing broken companies, restoring them to health, then letting them fly on their own. Her true gifts and abilities are found in her thrill for fixing broken companies, and yet those same skills would be skills that would be very harmful if she stayed in a company long-term.
Last edited by MSchemist80; 04-04-2013 at 11:13 AM..
Please explain the efficient and logical hiring process without HR.
I volunteer to do technical interviews at work, as do many of the other engineers. We all have full time work to do on top of that. Who's going to filter out the potential hires from the thousands of candidates applying? Who is going to coordinate the interviews? The 'hiring manager' is a team lead who put in a request for additional resources. Do you think they have nothing else to do but review resumes?
After either the phone screen (are we going to call EVERY candidate? Whose job is that?) or campus recruiting, they're brought in for an on-site interview. Who is going to spend the better part of their day with that candidate? Bringing in a candidate costs about $1,000. It takes at least a year to fire someone (6 months for a performance review, then another 6 months to improve), so just saying "hire someone, and if they don't work, fire them" doesn't fly.
The article offers many criticisms, but little in the way of solving the issues with recruiting.
This is the way I see it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvet Jones
The hiring manager should at least get to see the applications/resumes, which is not the case in many companies. HR often acts as a wall, blocking almost everything that comes in. They only submit what they think fits the jobs. Unfortunately they often have don't have the slightest idea what skills the candidate needs. For example, we were hiring for a very high level senior engineer two years ago, while the job market was still pretty bad in my area. How many resumes did HR forward to us? Two. Two friggin resumes. I asked how many they had received, the HR rep said "Oh, a couple of hundreds, but most of them were not a match". Now we never even got to see or edit the job description that was posted externally. It was just a standard boiler plate description that was used for all positions at that level. So these clueless HR reps were deciding who was right or not right for a job in which they had no qualification to judge. While a good chunk of those resumes might have been junk, I'm sure more than 2 of them were worth a second look.
What gets through to the hiring manager should be up to him or her. If he gives the recruiter/hr enough information the recruiter should be taking that information and using it to filter for the top 5-10 candidates.
I don't know where everyone works or what they do but I work with hiring managers on a daily basis in all different areas of my company and they always see their applicant's resumes and credentials beyond the initial screening.
Here is how it works at my company and every other company I have worked with.
Recruiter: Screens resumes, let's say 50 come in for a position.
She narrows that down to 15 and does a brief phone interview with them.
Let's say 10 of those are able to articulate their resume, are still interested in the position, and would be willing to move to the location the job is offered.
Those 10 resumes and notes from the interview are passed on to the hiring manager. Then the hiring manager lets the recruiter know which 4-5 he/she would like to talk to with the team.
From there on out the recruiter is just the contact person and all of the decisions are made through the hiring manager.
I guess it doesn't work like that everywhere, but that is the only way I have ever seen it work.
The reason you can't tweek each job description is because of legal, not HR. Jobs that are listed in specific job codes have to all be the same, require the same skillset, same minimum qualifications, etc. I deal with this on a daily basis, where someone wants to hire an admin person that has working knowledge of access and excel. If access is not required upon entry you can't hire based on that even if you want the person to use access. You must work off of the job description, that is a legal issue not an HR issue. In order to add access as a min qual you would need to go through the lengthy process of actaully starting a completely new job code, explaining to someone footing the bill why your admin needs Access knowledge, but no one else's does and prove that the job is different than every other admin job to get it a completely unique job code. Or else you could be found guilty of discrimination if Access knowledge causes adverse impact (IE only those under 40 have that skillset).
Last edited by mizzourah2006; 04-04-2013 at 11:18 AM..
Probably because the few HR people in this forum are constantly bashed and belittled on a daily basis by people who blame them directly for being unemployed. If I were in HR, I would likely be a bit defensive in this forum as well.
It's not about blame. It's about HR having pissy bitter attitudes when they are called out when they always side with the employer, even if an employer is clearly in the wrong. Also what you said goes both ways. The unemployed is tired of always being blamed, bashed and belittled as well.
Absolutely agree. Some people hold a double standard over the employee/employer dichotomy.
The difference here is that I can admit when an employee does something blatantly wrong against their employer. Go ahead HR/Managers/Employers, post one of your examples on here about an unruly employee. I consider myself balanced enough to say, "hey, what that employee did was not right and they deserved the punishment they received". OTOH, some folks, no matter how obvious the injustice, cannot stand the idea that an employer may have done something wrong towards an employee. It also goes the other way, with some folks thinking that employers are the evil Sith lords of the corporate world only doing injustice towards their employees. Either way, any time you consistently take an extreme stance on an issue, most likely you are a bound to be wrong at one time or another. It's all about having balance.
Agreed. Many people can admit when an employee does wrong. I even know of some terrible employees. But when a person cannot admit when an employer is wrong, then that person loses all credibility with me.
If at all possible avoid the HR department. Their primary function is to ask the job applicant questions that are so bizarre they'll never ever think of applying for another job at that particular company.
It's not about blame. It's about HR having pissy bitter attitudes when they are called out when they always side with the employer, even if an employer is clearly in the wrong. Also what you said goes both ways. The unemployed is tired of always being blamed, bashed and belittled as well.
That can't be said enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
