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.
I completely agree with you. ABvincent is ranting and raving against some illusory straw man HR office that generally doesn't exist.
Case studies are conducted daily at top business schools in this country focused entirely on eliminating useless costs to businesses. Shareholders invest in equity (and debt), they don't invest in equity draining business. Those are eliminated, shrunk, outsourced, shipped abroad. The reason HR exists is compliance set by statutory regulation. Now why do you think policy makers of big business scream about the endless regulation/s?
You can say I am ranting or whatever pleases your justification, I assure you the dominoes are already falling around the HR segment of business. Every day equity holders seek methods of removing this equity draining segment of a business.
You think they came up with ATS for fun? You think they come up with "computerized tests" because they thought it would be wise to add another layer to a hiring process? They came up with these in an effort to eliminate more HR functions. Because as I have said now repeatedly, HR adds ZERO equity.
Businesses are in a mad dash to rid themselves of this unit. Business students and IT students across this country work on it daily. But by all means, we are all entitled to our own perceptions and opinions, no investor ever said "Wow, Invest more in your HR department"; they are too busy telling leadership vacuum to get rid of it and all its equity destructive costs.
The whole focus of HR now is to find reasons NOT to hire you. They write job postings that are so off the wall and compare applicants to a checklist. Of course that assumes an actual person even looks at the applicant's materials. Human Resource people shuffle papers and believe they wield magical powers over all employees. They are not to be trusted at all, never tell them anything related to your personal life and never tell them anything more than is asked.
.
I don't doubt that HR is not a profit center in a company. I never implied that it was. My comments about your straw man argument are directed at this paragraph, which does not contain a single factual statement.
I don't doubt that HR is not a profit center in a company. I never implied that it was. My comments about your straw man argument are directed at this paragraph, which does not contain a single factual statement.
More of the same anti- HR ignorance that is regularly vomited forth on this forum.
That's interesting. I was just telling my wife about the weird interview I went on yesterday. . . I am an expert in a specific are of IT. I have certifications, I teach the certification class, experience, and involvement in a group devoted to that specific area. But the guy didn't seem to trust that I knew what I know and have done what I've done. He wanted to call in a buddy to talk to me and assess my knowledge (I felt like I was on pawn stars )
At first I thought it was just me - that I had not exhibited confidence or "sealed the deal". But then I realized that I've NEVER been accused of being unconfident or unable to communicate so it just had to be a skeptical hiring manager, by nature. I'm actually glad it didn't work out - imagine working for a manager whose alwasy distrustful and skeptical. It would be stressful and miserable.
Hi Domitian, I am sorry to hear about your interview. It is frustrating especially when you really want to work at the place. You never really know what goes on in the mind of a hiring manager. They will judge you on everything: how you sit, what you wear, your voice during the interview...I mean everything! And if even one minor thing out of 100 doesn't look quite right, they will negativitize that one thing like you've never seen a negative person do before.
If a hiring manager/HR is really that distrustful with everyone, I think it says more about their level of competence rather than the quality of the candidate.
Interesting! I think it's mostly from the experience with past and current employees or when you hear on the news that a person you never would thought would do something malicious then they end up doing something malicious.
Hi Domitian, I am sorry to hear about your interview. It is frustrating especially when you really want to work at the place. You never really know what goes on in the mind of a hiring manager. They will judge you on everything: how you sit, what you wear, your voice during the interview...I mean everything! And if even one minor thing out of 100 doesn't look quite right, they will negativitize that one thing like you've never seen a negative person do before.
From the point of view of a hiring manager, this is not correct.
Yes, you certainly want to put your best foot forward. But nobody is going to reject you as an applicant if your belt doesnt quite match your shoes (well, maybe somebody in the fashion industry might...).
In reality, you will be assessed in comparison with every other applicant that interviews, and for most jobs there will be 4-6 people interviewed. The odds are that you will probably get 5 rejections after an interview for every one offer. The decision to offer a position will be based upon experience, education, the companies needs and yes, your presentation. Some if this is quite beyond your control.
One example that comes to mind was for a technical position we had open. Several applicants were qualified, some exceptionally so. The decision came down to 2 different candidates, one who was strong in area A, and weak in area B. The other was strong in B but weak in A. Both candidates clearly met our minimum qualifications, and both interviewed well. We chose the applicant that was strong in A, weak in B, mostly because we had another employee who was pretty decent in B.
The person we rejected was probably very disappointed, and might be coming up with all sorts of rationalizations. The simple fact is that somebody met our needs better. Had circumstances been just a bit different, we would have made a different decision.
That's interesting. I was just telling my wife about the weird interview I went on yesterday. . . I am an expert in a specific are of IT. I have certifications, I teach the certification class, experience, and involvement in a group devoted to that specific area. But the guy didn't seem to trust that I knew what I know and have done what I've done. He wanted to call in a buddy to talk to me and assess my knowledge (I felt like I was on pawn stars )
At first I thought it was just me - that I had not exhibited confidence or "sealed the deal". But then I realized that I've NEVER been accused of being unconfident or unable to communicate so it just had to be a skeptical hiring manager, by nature. I'm actually glad it didn't work out - imagine working for a manager whose alwasy distrustful and skeptical. It would be stressful and miserable.
My observation from 35 years in the technical world is that non technical managers do not understand the technical issues, nor do they understand the language. And they do not trust what they do not understand. For some reason they seem to think all the scientists and engineers are trying to pull a fast one behind gobblely goop when in fact they have given a very coherent response to an incoherent question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaypee
I never knew HR wrote job descriptions. In all my years as a HM I've has to write jd's for my reqs.
I only used HR to source candidates and do the paperwork.
I used to write the descriptions for my area as well. But over the past few years HR has standardized all the job descriptions (trying to show value by "saving" money -- ie create the illusion in senior management that standard job descriptions mean interchangeable workers which just is not true) into useless piles of babble. Like our engineer ones; they look like HR just grabbed key words (or what they think are key words) from a bunch of college catalogs for every branch of engineering and strung them together into one run on sentence. Therefore they don't actually describe the job at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
I don't doubt that HR is not a profit center in a company. I never implied that it was. My comments about your straw man argument are directed at this paragraph, which does not contain a single factual statement.
I don't know, looking back, several of his statements, while exaggerated for effect, are in fact true at their core.
I used to write the descriptions for my area as well. But over the past few years HR has standardized all the job descriptions (trying to show value by "saving" money -- ie create the illusion in senior management that standard job descriptions mean interchangeable workers which just is not true) into useless piles of babble.
This has been my experience as well. A lot of interviews I've been on, I've always felt that there was a disconnect between the hiring manager and whoever wrote the job posting. If HR and the manager aren't on the same page, that's beyond my control, but I do expect the HM to read the job description before I walk in there.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57813
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaypee
What you're saying is that the interviewer (be it HR or anyone else) should trust this stranger they just met for the first time that he can do all the things he said he's good at and has accomplished all that he said he has done? Hmmm. Trust but verify.
I have seen many people on this forum asking for advice on how to lie on their resumes and in their interviews,
not a great example of earning trust from HR or hiring managers.
What is believe it is all about your knowledge and skill that matters during the interview. As long as you do not have the confidence in the job role, you are never be considered as a potential candidate. It is all about the confidence that matters during the interview.
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.
)
