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.
Do companies hire 'better' now than they did, say 25 to 35 years ago? No.
Do companies retain employees more now than they did 15 years ago? Hell No.
The problem is that so many jobs have nothing truly quantitative about them, and HR has no way to accurately determine who is a good candidate. They use HR systems to screen for key words and phrases, and screen using behavioral type questions and psych-out exams, trying to decrease their risk in hiring, which does not work. Give me someone with good old fashioned common sense (if you can find them, that is) and I think they'll make a much better hiring decision in the long run.
Back in the day (and we're talking way before I ever started working), people didn't ask "where do you see yourself in 5 years?" You got hired to do a job and you did the job or you got canned. Your dreams and aspirations were not their business. My father, for instance, had people working for him for over 30 years. In a few cases he had to retire some of them because they got too old to do the job--one was about 80 and her memory was going kaput.
I tell him about all the things companies do now in how they hire and he rolls his eyes and calls it just what it is: "bulls****"
It's common to get hired in a larger organization and then within a year face a reorganization. So you were hired but you may have a different manager. Suddenly no one knows why you were hired and you have to justify your existence and figure out what you can do for the company lest you get laid off.
I most recently worked for a huge company and in 6 years I had 5 different managers (all reorgs). In 2 of the cases each of the managers had no idea what their new 'group' was supposed to do and I'm sure they were too afraid to ask or else their manager didn't know either. I'm serious. We essentially did nothing but some busy work until the next reorg. No one ever looked at the skills of the people and considered that in determining how to restructure. Like picking up a chess board and throwing the pieces into the air, you landed where you landed and you were thrown into a group during a reorganization. A ton of people were under-employed not utilizing their skills, myself included. It was that or nothing.
Yes they do. Companies 25 years ago hired knowing they were hiring an employee for the long term. So, now HR has to hire knowing employees may be short term, and that they may be short term due to the employee wanting to leave through no fault of the company. So, yes. When you look at longevity only, no...but that is the change in the workforce, the acceptance of job hopping that is in place now that was not in the time frame you speak of.
You have this backwards. I've been around long enough to see first-hand the change that has occurred over the last 30 years
In the early-to-mid 1980's companies started to take away pension plans, which does not encourage employees to stay at one company, as there is no incentive to do so. 401K plans were offered as a way for employees to save for their own retirements. Some companies converted their pension plans to ESOP plans (Employee stock option plans), which put the burden on the employee.
Also in the 1980's the acquisition trend started in a big way with one giant company buying another and then getting rid of people to try and recoup costs. Lots of consolidation in many industries.
This trend continued and then companies started laying people off to gain short-term reductions in overhead expense instead of investing in people for the long term. They started with the oldest and most experienced people (who had the higher salaries and existing pension plans.) They wanted them off the books and needed to accelerate this in conjunction with pension plan migration. Employees were seen as an expendable cost.
Public companies now manage based on quarter-by-quarter results. A company is expected to increase their revenue and profit every year regardless of economic reality. Some companies lay off workers even when they have lots of profit and tons of cash in the bank--that's called pure greed.
This isn't a chicken or egg discussion. We know what came first--we can track the history. People leave when they aren't treated well, when there's no incentive to stay, and even people who want to stay at a company may be shown the door during a layoff. What we see today had its genesis in the 1980s and 1990s. I witnessed it.
Today employees are seen as costs instead of assets. When senior management fails to meet their commitments, cuts are taken from the rank 'n file. No one looks to analyze if senior mgmt is making promises that cannot realistically be kept.
HR is merely the handpuppet of senior management. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. All the degrees piled up don't translate to quantifiable and verifiable human resource results. HR hires based on Sr. management telling them to hire. A bunch of Ph.D's trying to make it all scientific and predicable haven't succeeded because in the end managers hire based on who makes them "feel" the right way. And layoffs are based on their feelings as well--it's never just based on numbers and performance.
At my last place of employment most of the HR people were unqualified and hired based strictly on who they knew (or who paid them off). I have seen this a lot at HR jobs. Btw I had to take a test for a job and was rejected because apparently I answered some of the questions wrong.The person who got the job lasted 3 months then quit.
[quote=lottamoxie;26407677]Do companies hire 'better' now than they did, say 25 to 35 years ago? No.
Do companies retain employees more now than they did 15 years ago? Hell No.
The problem is that so many jobs have nothing truly quantitative about them, and HR has no way to accurately determine who is a good candidate. They use HR systems to screen for key words and phrases, and screen using behavioral type questions and psych-out exams, trying to decrease their risk in hiring, which does not work. Give me someone with good old fashioned common sense (if you can find them, that is) and I think they'll make a much better hiring decision in the long run.
Back in the day (and we're talking way before I ever started working), people didn't ask "where do you see yourself in 5 years?" You got hired to do a job and you did the job or you got canned. Your dreams and aspirations were not their business. My father, for instance, had people working for him for over 30 years. In a few cases he had to retire some of them because they got too old to do the job--one was about 80 and her memory was going kaput.
I tell him about all the things companies do now in how they hire and he rolls his eyes and calls it just what it is: "bulls****"[/quote]
Yes been there, and recently... super annoying, degrading, and a huge time waster.
Anyone with half a brain can answer the questions the way the company wants them answered, for the job at hand. Personality "testing" takes the place of good old fashioned HR folks who actually used to conduct Interviews - the ones who used to understand all facets of the positions they were hiring for. Not the case today.
So, take the test, answer the questions the way you know they need to be answered for a job in sales/customer service/it/accounting/etc. and get by the hr person and onto the hiring manager for your REAL interview.
(sorry HR folks, no offense... i speak from my personal experience)
I think we are all familiar with the pitfalls of statistical studies and modeling. We see it everyday especially in the health science. Every day a study comes out that contradicts a previous study. It is bad to eat after 7PM, It doesn't matter when you eat just total calorie count. High salt is very bad, High salt makes no difference. Breaths are important in CPR, it makes no difference just do chest compressions. Especially when they are conducted by companies with an interest in selling this junk or HR organizations wanting to publish or find something to give credence to their crap.
This is a very good point and one of many reasons why statistics in an area should not be confused with a science and always taken with caution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebunny
Again.
I see you as someone who comes up with one theory, in this case that all HR is "junk science" and sticks to it...using that same theory to disprove ALL things that are presented otherwise.
I am not sure where you got your degree, or what craker jack box it came from, but anyone with even a LITTLE scientific knowledge (leaving you out) knows that science is NOT using one set of beliefs to prove how one feels, but rather being open to the possibility that your hypothesis is incorrect.
How's that working for you?
He's educated as a chemist. Academically, he's simply leagues above most. It is what it is. I'm a working scientist in industry and there is no science here to speak of (that I can tell). A hypothesis must be falsifiable. Can you really point to that principle in any hypothesis you can think of in your field? Right out of the gate it's problematic. There's nothing scientific about personality tests given at HR interviews nor are HR workers typically qualified to interpret the data.
I think we are all familiar with the pitfalls of statistical studies and modeling. We see it everyday especially in the health science. Every day a study comes out that contradicts a previous study. It is bad to eat after 7PM, It doesn't matter when you eat just total calorie count. High salt is very bad, High salt makes no difference. Breaths are important in CPR, it makes no difference just do chest compressions. Especially when they are conducted by companies with an interest in selling this junk or HR organizations wanting to publish or find something to give credence to their crap.
So now academics are companies or HR organizations?
how many of the authors have affiliations that aren't from academic institutions?
The first couple I looked up work for the high powered corporations of: The University of Connecticut, Indiana University-Bloomington, and Michigan State University.
*** has an impact factor that ranks it 9th in all management journals and 2nd in all applied psychology journals.
You can continue to make stuff up that is fine. It's fun to make stuff up to fit your opinion. So, continue to make up the fact that all research being done in applied psychology (which you for some reason continue to refer to as HR) is from companies trying to keep the man down and HR organizations that serve to make money off of the research. But the fact of the matter is the research is being conducted by large land grand research institutions. Why would these universities fund this pseudo science?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
He's educated as a chemist. Academically, he's simply leagues above most. It is what it is. I'm a working scientist in industry and there is no science here to speak of (that I can tell). A hypothesis must be falsifiable. Can you really point to that principle in any hypothesis you can think of in your field? Right out of the gate it's problematic. There's nothing scientific about personality tests given at HR interviews nor are HR workers typically qualified to interpret the data.
Cognitive Ability is positively related to on the job performance.
That is a hypothesis that is falsifiable.
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.
