Some quick thoughts on recruitment process

Recently I got to see the interview sheets ( where each panel member of the interview is asked to rate candidate on different parameters or competencies) and a final decision based on overall rating. One surprising finding is that the candidate who is shortlisted for further consideration is actually scoring low than some of the candidates who were rejected. The reason(s) in this case is pretty obvious. Lets see some of them:

• The interviewers went by their intuition on whether a candidate is good or not and used scoring sheets only as a justification at later point of time ( in this case they didn't bother to compare scorings with previous candidates). Each interview lasted on an average for more than 2 hours , so there is no doubt on how the candidates are assessed, but the point is the interview sheet which the company uses became more for the sake of record keeping rather than an evaluation tool

• Lets see another case. In this case the interview panel had thoroughly followed the process. But when it comes to making a final decision it depends on the senior most member in the panel, thus giving a scope of introducing bias in the system based on personal preferences of the senior most person.

There might be many other cases, but for now will stick to these 2 aspects as one can be solution to solving another.

when ever a senior member is involved in the panel, it makes a valid sense for each member to rate the candidate individually with explanations for ratings and discussion can happen based on the points written in the interview evaluation sheets. HR professional can facilitate this discussion phase as he is more likely to be objective as subject expert in the interviewing process

Now on a completely different topic, if a candidate is interviewed for a position which involves working in a team, it makes sense that the team leader who has a grasp on personalities of team members be involved in the interview process. It need not be leader in all the cases , some one who spent considerable time with the team can be a observer
In this case , the goal should not just be the best candidate but some one who can improve the performance of the team and who can assimilate better in the team
It should not be confused that selecting a candidate just to fit into the team at the cost of quality, some one who can question the underlying assumptions of the team and who can rationally question the team is fine , but some one who  can disrupt team cohesion would be a big NO

Lastly ,  As the saying goes "what u reap is what u sow",Getting right people on board helps achieving the organization goals in the long run

Tweet

The reason why most people in HR don't make it to the top

    
NOTE: This article is not written by me. Read it from http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=52264&item=268498134&type=member&trk=eml-anet_dig-b_pd-ttl-cn&fromEmail=&ut=0wvyit7bKhwBU1 written by Mr. Vinayak Nadkarni.
But content is so relevant that I can see HR professionals limiting themselves to lower levels day in and out
A must read for aspiring HR professionals
           

The reason why most people in HR don't make it to the top is because they have not groomed themselves to becoming ‘HR-driven business managers'. I can classify HR managers into five distinct categories based on the work they do:

 Level One: This is also the bottom most level, referred to as ‘HR administration' in which documentation, data gathering, record-keeping, and MIS are the main focus areas. This work is largely clerical and ‘outsource able'

 Level two: It revolves around monitoring and execution in which the focus is on collecting information, ‘reminding' people, getting forms filled and statutory obligations fulfilled. These may also include data analysis and feedback to the top management. The measures are quantified in terms of appraisal forms filled in time, capacity utilisation of training centres, recruitment and retention rates of employees

Level three: Here, designing and implementing are vital activities wherein the focus is on reviewing the existing systems, redesigning and starting new practices in performance appraisals, incentives/performance-linked pay, learning and development and employee engagement

 Level four: Here, one is busy strategizing, innovating, integrating and leading. In this level, the HR manager has to be aligned with business goals and his/her concerns shift from having a ‘good HR' to more of a ‘business driven HR' set-up. The HR person at this level is constantly looking for what is called as ‘next practices'. At this level, HR focuses on building leadership across the organization by using multiple tools including 360 degree feedback, development centres, top management team-building exercises, etc. Here, HR becomes talent-focused and the concern is on acquiring, retaining, nurturing and multiplying talent

Level five: And finally, this is the most evolved and progressive level focused on making HR a business partner. Here, managers realize that there can be no business without talented people at all levels and particularly at the top. They believe in the philosophy that people make business and therefore, ‘business-driven talent management' is essential. The focus shifts from tangibles to intangibles and from immediate and short-term performance goals to building long-term capabilities and from quarterly results to intellectual capital-building and shareholder value enhancement. Dave Ulrich calls this ‘outside–in HR'. I call this ‘business-focused HR'. The trouble with most HR people today is that they are stuck at the lower levels. A large number of them fail to grow beyond the first three levels. Many of them get habituated to hiring consultants and outsource their work rather than doing significant HR tasks themselves. How can you grow to be a CEO when you outsource recruitment, training, competency-mapping, employee engagement surveys and restrict yourself to being ‘materials managers' arranging for tender documents and finding out least expensive consultants? Shouldn't a modern-day HR manager understand customers and other stakeholders and direct the talent to be business-focused? Such HR managers can't grow to be CEOs. Our B-schools in HR do not prepare HR to be CEOs and in fact aim at preparing them for the first two or three levels of HR sadly.All CEOs are required to be good HR people and past leaders have demonstrated this. It is high time HR recognises the potential they are sitting on and change their ways.Almost all successful CEOs of the past and current corporate scenarios are good ‘people managers'.

Tweet