U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2016, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Western Washington
10,019 posts, read 9,202,013 times
Reputation: 17563

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domitian View Post
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.
The manager's attitude in the interview may not be indicative of their overall attitude. I could be viewed as suspicious in an interview, but I do trust my established employees and generally have a good working relationship with all of my reporting departments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2016, 11:55 AM
 
68 posts, read 77,396 times
Reputation: 81
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.

Any business could eliminate 99% of the HR function by simply telling hiring managers they are responsible for their own hiring. The manager has a budget, he knows what he needs in an employee, and he knows what to look for in an applicant. The 1% of HR that would need to be retained is the legal piece--compliance. Hire a few attorneys to do this function and then completely eliminate your HR department.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
10,019 posts, read 9,202,013 times
Reputation: 17563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abvincent1 View Post
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.

Any business could eliminate 99% of the HR function by simply telling hiring managers they are responsible for their own hiring. The manager has a budget, he knows what he needs in an employee, and he knows what to look for in an applicant. The 1% of HR that would need to be retained is the legal piece--compliance. Hire a few attorneys to do this function and then completely eliminate your HR department.
I have worked for many companies, and have never encountered an HR department like the one you describe. If HR acts as a roadblock to hiring, they will soon be replaced with a new group of people who support hiring.

My experience is much closer to your second paragraph. HR supports, advertises, makes sure payroll gets done correctly and the like. I have never once had HR tell me that I cannot hire anybody.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Planet Telex
4,997 posts, read 2,568,721 times
Reputation: 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
Some people lie outrageously on applications, so any given candidate pool is likely to have one or more liars.
I'm assuming your talking about major lies such as lying about job titles, salary, or educational background. However, what is your opinion regarding white lies like over-exaggerating previous job duties? For example, if the candidate trained new employees at a previous job, does that mean they can all of a sudden put on their resume that they have "Human Resources" experience?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Seattle
2,639 posts, read 1,363,098 times
Reputation: 5254
In most professional settings HR isn't doing the hiring.

In cases where it's more common is in no skill laborer jobs where it's more about quantity then quality. I have to admit when hiring in large groups from the typical demographics, greater scrutiny and gut feeling is important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 03:06 PM
 
68 posts, read 77,396 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
I have worked for many companies, and have never encountered an HR department like the one you describe. If HR acts as a roadblock to hiring, they will soon be replaced with a new group of people who support hiring.

My experience is much closer to your second paragraph. HR supports, advertises, makes sure payroll gets done correctly and the like. I have never once had HR tell me that I cannot hire anybody.
Human Resources is the most financially draining piece of an organization; which likely explains why it is the first to see the stream of layoffs when company profits fall. Why? They create zero equity. Human Resources has one valuable piece, ensuring compliance with statutory obligations. When boss A has violated company policy or harassed employee B, human resources will lead the charge. Beyond that, they do nothing of substance.

In fact, it is easily argued they significantly drain equity. Their work product creates nothing. They are a gate keeper who forces managers to hold their hands as they (HR) perpetuate their (HR) self-grandiosity. Businesses see this, that is why they have created computer systems to try to improve and eliminate HR personnel with ATS. Granted, when you create a computer system you can't derive it from the failed human resource personnel who drove the system in the ground to begin with.

That is why ATS are abject failures, because they are modeled after failed HR policies: keywords, check lists, on and on. Don't have 5 years experience: ELIMINATE...NEXT. Yet, the person may be a dream hire. It doesn't really matter though, because if the candidate does make it past the ATS, he will immediately meet the HR death spiral and will drained of self worth, will already view your company as a scattered mess (thinking, why are they asking me about five year plans or what my former boss would "think of me"--who cares, let me show you my real skills). If he does make it past this failed system, he is already looking for something better or will be in 3-6 months, who would want to deal with such a disorganized mess?

When you add all these components up, what is the central theme? HR. How do you fix it? You hire lawyers for the compliance piece, you de-centralize hiring to managers who know their section/s of the business and monitor their own budgets, and you eliminate the paper pushers.

The intangible costs of HR to 99.9999% of business is negative equity to stakeholders. The day organizations wake up to this fact they will instantly be the market leader in their industries. Economics teaches us that as long as your competitors are doing this as well, you have little to worry about...once your competitor realizes a better method (which will happen), you will quickly see the cost of perpetuating the antiquated, equity destructive system. It's just a matter of time before HR is eliminated from most businesses.

Last edited by Abvincent1; 08-26-2016 at 03:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 03:09 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
13,343 posts, read 18,120,225 times
Reputation: 19677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abvincent1 View Post
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.

Any business could eliminate 99% of the HR function by simply telling hiring managers they are responsible for their own hiring. The manager has a budget, he knows what he needs in an employee, and he knows what to look for in an applicant. The 1% of HR that would need to be retained is the legal piece--compliance. Hire a few attorneys to do this function and then completely eliminate your HR department.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 03:12 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
13,343 posts, read 18,120,225 times
Reputation: 19677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domitian View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
10,019 posts, read 9,202,013 times
Reputation: 17563
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandsthetime View Post
I'm assuming your talking about major lies such as lying about job titles, salary, or educational background. However, what is your opinion regarding white lies like over-exaggerating previous job duties? For example, if the candidate trained new employees at a previous job, does that mean they can all of a sudden put on their resume that they have "Human Resources" experience?
I have encountered both, although it seems people exaggerate duties more frequently.

Since you asked, I frown on people exaggerating duties. If you trained people, put that down, but don't claim managerial or HR experience. If you did some budgetary analysis, tell me about that but don't claim to be an accountant. If you can do 110v electrical work, don't claim high voltage competency.

One recent candidate claimed to have come up with a concept for a rather revolutionary business operation at a previous employer. The claims involved initial concept, financing, training, vendor partnerships, etc. during the interview none of this held up, and it became obvious. When questioned about the details of bond financing, I received blank stares. My IT counterpart was very interested in some of the technical details....crickets. Later Google searches showed that some venture had been launched, and it appeared to be in serious financial trouble with pending litigation. Guess who did not get hired?

I do check claims that come up in an interview, and if I uncover any serious mistrusts, that candidate is done. I need to work with my hires for years. If I cannot trust them, I can't work with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
10,019 posts, read 9,202,013 times
Reputation: 17563
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaypee View Post
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 completely agree with you. ABvincent is ranting and raving against some illusory straw man HR office that generally doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top