Quote:
Originally Posted by DorianRo
Lets also not forget that in many cases, unless you have a connection and an "in" with someone already at the company (that can weasel your job application around the formalities of the hiring process) your resume could just fall into a black hole of hell never to see the light of day.
You're already a disadvantage if you don't have a connection and competing against someone that does. The "opening" may just go to someone already at the company as well.
|
There is a fair bit of truth to your post, but there are some other things going on. I can only speak to larger businesses.
Most hiring managers in large business are well aware of and hate that "black hole of hell." HR is chartered with keeping a database of resumes and candidates, but trying to finding a pool of candidates from HR sometimes is like pulling teeth. It is as if the HR staffing employees don't even know how to spell "HR."
Hiring managers, directors & VPs spend quite a bit of time jumping through internal hoops to "open a req" to hire an additional person or replace someone who left. It is time consuming and painful, and during tough times, frequently requires approval from multiple layers of executives in the line-of-business as well as finance, HR and elsewhere.
When a req is approved, sometimes it is only approved for "internal hire" -- that is, a transfer from elsewhere inside the company, because at the highest levels of the company the company doesn't want to add more total people, and wants to avoid involuntary layoffs in areas of the company that need to contract. So putting an external hiring freeze in place helps focus hiring managers on internal candidates. Only if they can't find one are they allowed to go outside, which usually means going through HR.
If they are allowed to hire from outside, in many companies, the consequence of
managers hiring people with whom they have a connection is twofold.
First, the hiring manager may be able to fill the position more quickly - and there is always intense pressure on the manager to get it done. The manager
believes the person to be quality, but unless they've actually worked with the person closely in the past (say, at another company), they never
really know.
Second, HR has discovered that hiring people with whom a manager has a connection by itself isn't necessarily bad, but in aggregate it tends to perpetuate demographic problems. Managers are people, and outside of work, it is very common for people to have connections with people of their own demographics.
That's generally viewed as a bad thing: the company doesn't want to inadvertently disproportionately hire new employees of the same demographic as the hiring manager. The company in aggregate wants to, and in order to comply with various EEOC laws and regulations must, develop a diverse workforce.
Letting hiring managers select from a population of "connections" may not further the goal of developing that diverse workforce, and that's a problem.
So many HR departments have a plethora of internal regulations to help ensure the hiring manager (frequently, say a white male) doesn't merely choose candidates from the same demographic.
HR departments frequently have a rule in place saying that a req must be posted internally for at least X days/weeks prior to going outside. It must be open outside for at least X days/weeks prior to interviewing anyone. The hiring manager must select from resumes provided by HR - where, behind the scenes, HR is doing its best to ensure that they have a diverse set of candidates from which the hiring manager may select.
And ultimately, only then may a hiring manager request an offer be extended by HR to the candidate. And HR won't do that until they know the hiring manager has considered a diverse set of candidates.
All this takes time.
The hiring manager wants to short-circuit all of this, because the manager is being held accountable for actual results.