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.
Let's build an HR psycho tactics database.
Most of us job seekers have had the same or similar experience, where we were fully qualified for a corporate job, we knew that very few people have the real skills, and we got an automated (or pretend automated) rejection letter. then the candidate is puzzled, assuming hiring is about merit and skill-sets ads it should be. HR and corporations never publish up front, for example that they only hire constantly smiling people. No, the job description only lists hard skills.
In recent years, HR gurus have written many books and held conferences and trainings where they taught most corporate HR employees how to build a corporate utopia by screening out "undesirable people". In their world view the un-desirabilty is determined by aspects that seem psychopathic to most of us normal people. At many large corporations this screening is mandatory, and supersede the hiring managers' wish to hire a particular candidate. So they reduce the applicant pool by 95%, and only let the remaining 5% to be checked for skills and experience by iring managers.
During phone screening or resume parsing, they are looking for behavior patterns or psychological markers that they have previously defined in their junk science classes. Sometimes they are passively looking, other times they are trying to entrap the candidate into exhibiting a certain behavior. They believe they are hunting for bad people, but really it makes them bad people.
I think this is closely related to the womens studies and gender studies ideologies.These are ideologies that are similar to each other, but have different target goals or people groups.
If you can provide links to HR training material or university lecture/book that explicitly teach these things, it would be awesome.
Example items I have discovered:
They try to dig up as many people as they can who worked with the candidate, they interrogate them pretty long, trying to get a negative comment about the candidate. If they get that, then they conclude that this person would not get on well with a large group of people, since 1 out of 20 people said something they didn't like about him/her.
During phone or resume screening they are looking for signs of: someone who achieved something on his own, someone who is proud of something he did, not enough praise of team-mates when talking about achievements. Maybe they are looking for keywords like "we" or "team", if they re mentioned at least N times. Or looking for "I", and if too many occurrences found, terminate the hiring.
if the candidate mentions anything or anyone negatively. If they detect it, then terminate and block the hiring process. It is called "cult of positivity". this is useful when half the team are incompetent, and they have to still feel valued, while an honest person could scatter that safe space. I heard people complaining about "those people who don't adhere to positivity, they are no fun to be around".
The person does not smile enough or does not sound super happy.
Cultural fit. Somehow HR determines the company culture, not by looking around what the culture actually is like (for example at some companies the CEO is a former design engineer, so technical stuff are valued), rather they invent a new culture that they want the company's existing culture to be replaced with, so they can reject every candidate who does not fit the new mold, and force the fitting ones on the hiring managers. New progressively defined culture can be mannerisms, hobbies, politics, life styles, forced-mediocrity...
How about they hired someone better and then person who didn't get it come to CD to complain about how they were perfect and the other couldn't have been and they hired the wrong person.
How about they hired someone better and then person who didn't get it come to CD to complain about how they were perfect and the other couldn't have been and they hired the wrong person.
Keep your cynicism to yourself. And stop covering up for psychopaths.
In today's corporate world, your scenario is not common. 50 years ago it was.
What really happens is there are 50 candidates, candidates ordered by competence would mean candidate#1...candidate#50. To draw a professional threshold, based on productivity, only candidate#1 is competent, candidates#[2...50] are incompetent charlatans and liars. HR cuts out 90% of the people based on psycho juck science. Actually competence is really contradicting some of their requirements. So only candidate#10, candidate#20 and candidate#30 pass the HR screening.
Now candidates#[1...9] are rightfully call foul play. Candidate#[21...29] and candidate#[31...50] are obviously wrong to complain. In general this case is still non-meritocratic. If candidate#1 is rejected, then it is non-meritocratic, psychopathic, regardless of what candidate#[2...50] think.
Keep your cynicism to yourself. And stop covering up for psychopaths.
In today's corporate world, your scenario is not common. 50 years ago it was.
You have proof that 100% of all hiring involves hiring the wrong person...because HR is psycho...otherwise...you would get hired for every job you apply for??? Are you saying this?
As to your original request, who's got time to obsess over some perceived wrong by HR people? Are you NEVER going to apply for another job ever again? If you are, then you need to make peace with the process.
You have proof that 100% of all hiring involves hiring the wrong person...because HR is psycho...otherwise...you would get hired for every job you apply for??? Are you saying this?
As to your original request, who's got time to obsess over some perceived wrong by HR people? Are you NEVER going to apply for another job ever again? If you are, then you need to make peace with the process.
still too much cynicism.
I met several incompetent morons who previously worked at companies where they didn't hire me.
This is a general problem, it affects merited persons, and drives businesses into the ground. Just run a search on linkedin for the company and position, and many of the results will be people who had no impressive track record or have done nothing of value ever before getting the job.
For example one company has a guy who worked in a supermarket for 16 years, then got an evening college engineering degree and they hired him a a design engineer. I'm an expert in the field and worked for 13 years, and got auto rejection at start at the same place.
Most fortune 500 companies have this now. Many of these screening things are new, learned on recent HR conferences.
Peace? no. War!
It might not be visible to you that people who are high performers, are treated badly by HR socialists, if you are not a high performer.
How often do you interview with "hr"? Hr facilities the process/paperwork and information exchange. After setting the interview time/date, I interview with the department manager and co-workers.
The concept- method is used in various job fields. Police, public servant . It's used to assess in conditional training. So yes it's a plausible method.
I took a similar mental fitness test when applying at a children's home. I was given no status of the results other then the cookie cutter, we found a candidate more suitable.
Most profiling is necessary for corporate leaders. From cut throat leadership to ocd. Let's face it most in dynamic roles need to have the go getter attitude. Who better then the person who is seeing the goal and utilizes his underlings to accomplish it.
OP- you make some valid remarks. There is one huge factor though that needs incorporated. Most humans are bias and will hire simply because they like the green tie someone is wearing.
At most large companies HR does pre-screening. the engineering manager never sees the resumes of 95% of applicants.
The level of threshold for these junk science pyscho screenings i such that they brand 95% educated people non corporate material. It is not a psychological test where they announce that it is a psychological test. Rather it is a pretend casual conversation with intent for entrapment. That includes people who helped corporations already for many years to succeed with their projects. Do you think it is anywhere near reasonable?
In one case, and executive submitted his own resume for a similar job at his company, and quickly got a rejection that he was not qualified. This happens a lot. I have similar experiences too.
This unreasonable personality type bias is more common in hr prescreening than in hiring manager interviewing. and hr does not do it instinctively, they have a bunch of junk sceience justifications for branding completely normal people as bad corporate material.
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.
