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.
2 year MS office experience for a collections position...
Nothing for nothing, but they teach that in high school these days. Seriously how many people who can turn on a computer and get on the Internet don't know at least the basics of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint?
Nothing for nothing, but they teach that in high school these days. Seriously how many people who can turn on a computer and get on the Internet don't know at least the basics of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint?
The middle aged to old who stress out over minor inconveniences and irritate our poor IT guy, heheheheh.
Heck, we never had those type of classes when I attended HS up until '98, sadly it was until college where we had to teach ourselves MS Office to do some of our assignments.
The middle aged to old who stress out over minor inconveniences and irritate our poor IT guy, heheheheh.
Heck, we never had those type of classes when I attended HS up until '98, sadly it was until college where we had to teach ourselves MS Office to do some of our assignments.
I'm middle-aged and can use MS Office--including the VB functions of Access. Very few people in today's work force are as computer illiterate as you seem to think they are.
I got a Masters Degree in Human Resources from the University of Minnesota and have a SPHR Certification. I can assure you the field is incredibly complex and to pass the SPHR test from the Society for Human Resources Management you really have to know your stuff becuase most people fail.
But I do agree that many of the young girls found in many HR Departments are fools.
HR isn't incredibly complex and an SPHR isn't difficult to obtain - it's just memorization. There are no abstract formulas or concepts that take years of learning to comprehend. This ain't thermodynamics or physics we're talking about. If someone fails that exam, it's simply because they didn't study enough to memorize the concepts, not because it's overly complex or difficult.
HR is an important strategic function, but knowing HR theories isn't enough. Real HR people are strategic business people that know how to set up programs or practices to tie the department's contribution to the bottom line. An HR degree or an SPHR designation isn't going to teach you how to do that. Analytical abilities, knowledge of the business, common sense and the ability to execute ideas will get you there - that's why high level HR people often come from other departments within the company like sales and are already experts in the industry and business of the organization. The best solutions are often very simple, common sense ideas that no one has thought of yet or taken the initiative to implement.
Most people here seem to have a naive, uninformed view of HR's role. The psychobabble you speak of is a necessary screening tool. It's not intended to be some esoteric psychological mind game. Recruiters know you're probably going to be prepared for behavioral based questions, but really good recruiters know how to take you into the rabbit hole to uncover the layers behind your experience just to see how you handle yourself, what your personality is like, and how you'd fit in with the team, your boss, the culture and the role. HR isn't intended to be the decision maker. The hiring manager with the functional expertise will always have the final say, but if you can't even pass the fit screen, it's probably because you really would be a bad fit or you just didn't prepare enough.
HR's true function is to assist in mobilizing people to align with company strategy - whether through training, recruiting, developing A players, firing slackers, retaining contributors, attracting potential A players by building the reputation of the company as a great place to work etc. These activities definitely have an impact on the bottom line and top line growth. GE, the largest company in the world was built by Jack Welch's famous strategic HR programs and decisions. In fact even Jack said that he values the HR director more than the CFO. You can't execute strategy without attracting the right people and motivating them to act on it, and HR is a big contributor to that.
Nothing for nothing, but they teach that in high school these days. Seriously how many people who can turn on a computer and get on the Internet don't know at least the basics of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint?
I know PLENTY of people who can't! I have a friend who cannot even use the internet and she's only in her mid40s--just can't be bothered and has no interest and a STATE job...
Fortunately for me, even though I was on the end of those never taught computers, I am self educated on the internet/programs.
I also catch on fast so I am not worried about the techy stuff.
HR isn't incredibly complex and an SPHR isn't difficult to obtain - it's just memorization. There are no abstract formulas or concepts that take years of learning to comprehend. This ain't thermodynamics or physics we're talking about. If someone fails that exam, it's simply because they didn't study enough to memorize the concepts, not because it's overly complex or difficult.
HR is an important strategic function, but knowing HR theories isn't enough. Real HR people are strategic business people that know how to set up programs or practices to tie the department's contribution to the bottom line. An HR degree or an SPHR designation isn't going to teach you how to do that. Analytical abilities, knowledge of the business, common sense and the ability to execute ideas will get you there - that's why high level HR people often come from other departments within the company like sales and are already experts in the industry and business of the organization. The best solutions are often very simple, common sense ideas that no one has thought of yet or taken the initiative to implement.
Most people here seem to have a naive, uninformed view of HR's role. The psychobabble you speak of is a necessary screening tool. It's not intended to be some esoteric psychological mind game. Recruiters know you're probably going to be prepared for behavioral based questions, but really good recruiters know how to take you into the rabbit hole to uncover the layers behind your experience just to see how you handle yourself, what your personality is like, and how you'd fit in with the team, your boss, the culture and the role. HR isn't intended to be the decision maker. The hiring manager with the functional expertise will always have the final say, but if you can't even pass the fit screen, it's probably because you really would be a bad fit or you just didn't prepare enough.
HR's true function is to assist in mobilizing people to align with company strategy - whether through training, recruiting, developing A players, firing slackers, retaining contributors, attracting potential A players by building the reputation of the company as a great place to work etc. These activities definitely have an impact on the bottom line and top line growth. GE, the largest company in the world was built by Jack Welch's famous strategic HR programs and decisions. In fact even Jack said that he values the HR director more than the CFO. You can't execute strategy without attracting the right people and motivating them to act on it, and HR is a big contributor to that.
I think this is a good post over all, but I don't really agree with your comments regarding recruiters. At least not across the board and perhaps I'm reading too quickly in order to get off to work. There is simply no way the recruiters at my job are serving the function you speak of. I work for a global biomedical research institute and understanding the strategy drivers in early discovery in our specific niche (my department, which is within a platform, among several platforms) is simply something that cannot be really understood by folk who do not have expertise. Not even a scientist in another area of expertise can know it, let alone a person in HR. This recruiter will not understand the experience to begin with in order to get to any layers nor will they really understand the pressures of what it is to be an industry scientist and what personality lends to success. As an aside, ime, a majority of positions that are filled in my dept are via networking or from the inside. I've yet to see a position filled cold in the 4 years I've been with them.
I think this is a good post over all, but I don't really agree with your comments regarding recruiters. At least not across the board and perhaps I'm reading too quickly in order to get off to work. There is simply no way the recruiters at my job are serving the function you speak of. I work for a global biomedical research institute and understanding the strategy drivers in early discovery in our specific niche (my department, which is within a platform, among several platforms) is simply something that cannot be really understood by folk who do not have expertise. Not even a scientist in another area of expertise can know it, let alone a person in HR. This recruiter will not understand the experience to begin with in order to get to any layers nor will they really understand the pressures of what it is to be an industry scientist and what personality lends to success. As an aside, ime, a majority of positions that are filled in my dept are via networking or from the inside. I've yet to see a position filled cold in the 4 years I've been with them.
don't you think that is more an issue of communication and strategy than anything else?
If a thorough job analysis is done and an understanding of the personality/fit profiles of successful vs. unsuccessful employees in each platform were performed how would a scientist have any better information regarding personality/fit than a recruiter? They should be on the exact same page. Now when it comes to technical interviews having the hiring manager or incumbents (if it is a team based job) present during the interview process is very important.
I completely understand what you are saying and it makes sense, but it seems like that is more an issue of the scientists and recruiters not communicating and very little actual data collection going on with regards to what distinguishes a successful scientist in each platform from an unsuccessful scientist in each platform.
If the individuals in the role were more forthcoming and manager performance ratings were actual performance ratings and not functions of halo error and leniancy/severity biases good data could be collected on the characteristics and competencies of successful employees.
And like many have mentioned, many "HR" people are under qualified and end up using cookie-cutter techniques. I can't tell you the amount of people that have came to me and said......I have to give an interview for a job.......give me some good interview questions. I respond with......give me a job analysis or at the very least a thorough job description. An interview, selection battery, etc. is only as good as the data collected about the job and the individuals that were and were not successful in the position(s) in the past.
These examples most definitely give HR a bad name and understandably so.
In my opinion, HR shouldn't be interviewing people with the exception of people applying for HR jobs or general clerical type positions. The people who should be interviewing are the hiring managers and those who will be the direct supervisors or team leaders of the person being hired.
Lots of HR people have an attitude because they are interviewing candidates for positions that pay almost twice what they are earning and they have been their for years.
Lots of HR people have an attitude because they are interviewing candidates for positions that pay almost twice what they are earning and they have been their for years.
I'm a partner in my company and have employees who make a higher salary than I do. I understand that to retain top talent with certain technical skill sets you need to pay top dollars.
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.
