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.
I'm thinking of all the ways HR fails to capture great talent:
1. A percentage of talent doesn't apply to certain jobs because they are online applications. So instead of just allowing someone to send in a resume/letter, HR at some companies force talent to create a username/password and fill out an online app. So the company loses a % of potential applicants.
2. 1-on-1 interviews. Studies show a correlation of .14 between on job performance and 1-on-1 interviews. If you want to know if someone has polished social skills, is a great B.S.er, and is likeable, rely on 1-on-1 interviews. If you want to know how well they'll perform, don't. HR does.
3. Just being plain retarded. When I talk to HR I feel like I'm talking to the sorority girl that was the airhead in all my classes in school when I was younger.
I just can't apply a single generalization to an entire group. I have been an HR professional most of my career and now I consult for HR departments. Some HR departments are staffed by "Sally Sues" and others have insightful, highly educated contributors to the senior management goals. But, I do believe the quality of the HR department's staff is a good reflection of how the company feels about its non-executive employees.
I have posted this before but I worked at very well known univerisity where you if you wanted to apply for another position the protocol was to go through the main employment office(HUGE MISTAKE).
I found out later from other people, go directly to the dept if want to change jobs. Then follow the protocol, but let someone know in the dept. you want to work in that you are applying if you ever want to get hired.
I had been working there for 5 years when I decided to apply for a job with another dept. that I was qualified for. I received a letter at home thanking me for my interest in the university but that I wasn't qualfied, no mention of the fact that I already worked there...LOL.
I took the letter over to the head of dept.
Another time I received a turndown letter on my 3rd day of my new job at a Fortune 500 company. From the HR woman who called me and offered me the job!
While at that company I did become somewhat friendly(at work only) with another HR employee who came to me one day asking for help. There was an open position in our dept. and she confided she wasn't really clear as to what she should be looking for. I helped her as she was a nice woman, but this again showed how there are many HR people who don't know what to look for when filling a position.
These are just a few examples.
The best interview process I ever had(where I didn't get the job) involved emailing my resume and a week later getting a phone call. It wasn't HR but the person who would have been my boss. He said "we will worry about HR later". This was also a very well know company.
I got the feeling he also knew they created problems.
I have posted this before but I worked at very well known univerisity where you if you wanted to apply for another position the protocol was to go through the main employment office(HUGE MISTAKE).
I found out later from other people, go directly to the dept if want to change jobs. Then follow the protocol, but let someone know in the dept. you want to work in that you are applying if you ever want to get hired.
I had been working there for 5 years when I decided to apply for a job with another dept. that I was qualified for. I received a letter at home thanking me for my interest in the university but that I wasn't qualfied, no mention of the fact that I already worked there...LOL.
I took the letter over to the head of dept.
Another time I received a turndown letter on my 3rd day of my new job at a Fortune 500 company. From the HR woman who called me and offered me the job!
While at that company I did become somewhat friendly(at work only) with another HR employee who came to me one day asking for help. There was an open position in our dept. and she confided she wasn't really clear as to what she should be looking for. I helped her as she was a nice woman, but this again showed how there are many HR people who don't know what to look for when filling a position.
These are just a few examples.
The best interview process I ever had(where I didn't get the job) involved emailing my resume and a week later getting a phone call. It wasn't HR but the person who would have been my boss. He said "we will worry about HR later". This was also a very well know company.
I got the feeling he also knew they created problems.
Agree totally. I've had almost the same experience as you.
HR Departments are filled with women who majored in worthless degrees and are using their power as a way to perpetuate their useless careers.
I think HR and their BS will be the death of a lot of companies.
I see it a lot in technical professions. They want highly skilled workers and when they come they are put though all sorts of nonsense by HR and managers, the application system is long and obnoxious, they are screened out by people who are not at all qualified to judge the candidate's qualifications, the interview focuses on BSing ability as they ask the same stupid psychobabble questions and wind up hiring the best BSer and driving away the best talent.
I agree too. Most of the time the HR person has no idea about the position they are trying to recruit for and just use a list of useless questions to screen applicants.
The thing that irks me the most is their lack of ability to hit "reply" or to return a voicemail. If they've ruled you out they can't even have the decency most of the time to just let you know after you email them or leave them a message. It takes less than a minute to send an email.
The hiring/termination of employees is just one aspect of HR. There's also policies, benefits, training, etc.
In my experience (and this could very well be more the exception) with both large and small companies, HR facilitates the recruiting process. They don't actually make the hiring decision (that is typically on the hiring manager). That said, HR recruiter do have influence as they are "middle man" between the hiring manager and the candidates.
So yes, they can have a negative impact if a potential fit is lost in the shuffle by HR. However, good recruiters are indispensable to hiring managers. I know I certainly benefited from them. I wouldn't be able to effectively go through hundreds of resumes / position. Also, how well a recruiter can sift through resumes is dependent on how well the hiring manager communicates their desires - as that's what the recruiter typically go by.
As for 1 one 1 interviews. What would be an alternate option? I know people have mentioned "trial" periods here in the past - that's what your first 90 days is usually. Again, in my experience, HR usually does a phone screen first to make sure that there's is a general match between the candidate and the position (sometimes the hiring manager may do this). When you actually get to the interview, the HR portion is typically just about benefits and stuff.
As for being "retarded" and "rude"... that's just human characteristics. HR hardly has the monopoly on that.
As for the original question - do they cost companies great talent? There are many things that can cost companies great talent in certain situations. But I don't think any company would continue to promote a liability if they know about it.
It all evens out in the end. Every company is going to have an HR department and every job seeker is going to accept a job at some point. Now I agree some companies are going to be on the losing end and some on the winning end, but overall HR is not going to have an impact.
The hiring/termination of employees is just one aspect of HR. There's also policies, benefits, training, etc.
In my experience (and this could very well be more the exception) with both large and small companies, HR facilitates the recruiting process. They don't actually make the hiring decision (that is typically on the hiring manager). That said, HR recruiter do have influence as they are "middle man" between the hiring manager and the candidates.
So yes, they can have a negative impact if a potential fit is lost in the shuffle by HR. However, good recruiters are indispensable to hiring managers. I know I certainly benefited from them. I wouldn't be able to effectively go through hundreds of resumes / position. Also, how well a recruiter can sift through resumes is dependent on how well the hiring manager communicates their desires - as that's what the recruiter typically go by.
As for 1 one 1 interviews. What would be an alternate option? I know people have mentioned "trial" periods here in the past - that's what your first 90 days is usually. Again, in my experience, HR usually does a phone screen first to make sure that there's is a general match between the candidate and the position (sometimes the hiring manager may do this). When you actually get to the interview, the HR portion is typically just about benefits and stuff.
As for being "retarded" and "rude"... that's just human characteristics. HR hardly has the monopoly on that.
As for the original question - do they cost companies great talent? There are many things that can cost companies great talent in certain situations. But I don't think any company would continue to promote a liability if they know about it.
I agree with your assessment. I think what irks most people about HR is the general idea that they put more emphasis on the more superficial aspects of a potential candidate than the candidates actual skillset and experience.
Every other week you see an article posted on Yahoo or a competing site that has resume tips and interview do's and don'ts written by HR people who focus on the superficial because they don't have the knowledge or insight to interview a candidate based on his experience.
No one should be judged solely on if there is a typo on their resume or if their tie is a little crooked. Who cares if a candidate has a 3 page resume? Does it really take that long to read 3 pages? Everyone conveys their skills and experience differently so why try to force everyone into the same rigid process.
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.
