Misconceptions within HR

The very first interaction with a future employer - in most cases - is with the HR department, hence my first article will be specially dedicated to them. I still remember those days, where it was simply called Personnel Department, being in charge with the administrative chores regarding the employees and to get the pay-cheques out on time. When it became a human resources department, it extended its field from administrative into the realm of selecting and hiring candidates. The initial concept may be justified that the potential candidate is seen as an asset to the company. Nowadays, I often gravely doubt, whether this still holds true. 

In my almost daily contacts with HR professionals, I come across various issues, which hardly seems in line with the primary task of the involved, concurrently they could pose a serious threat to the overall long term strategic interests of the business. Whether it pertains to in-house professionals or external HR- or head-hunter agencies, the trend is becoming somewhat generally applicable - irrespective, whether we are currently in a crisis or not - and would require managements to seriously reflect on which way we are heading.

Some time ago, by mere chance, it came to my attention that a well known globally operating American computer company, was having some serious issues within their workforce in their Bratislava branch. When making an inventory throughout several departments within the company, the picture for all of them was fairly the same; 70% of staff was disappointed about the job they got  (and this was still a conservative estimate - basically a different chore than what they were promised, there was a huge staff flow - resulting in a constant learning curve and loss of know how, and thus a creating chronic deficit of dedicated and qualified people.

Given this situation, I would not like to be in the shoes of the CEO. Advertising appealing job titles, and finding out it's just a hollow shell, is not only a bit unethical to do, but will not instil much credibility for the new employee and already creating a dent in the confidence between the employer and his 'asset'. True is, that a cleaner will feel flattered if you name him a "floor manager", the reverse side is, that a senior marketing analyst, ending up in only feeding his excel sheets with data-batches and creating standard pivot tables will end up pretty annoyed. Discontent and a more-than-acceptable exodus of trained employees as a result, is devastating for your business. Wasting huge amount of energy and money to fill in the gaps is slurping up your efficiency, furthermore it destroys your brand. People leaving tell their story, customers are confronted with shortage of service, and so on. This will not remain within the walls of the office and negative insider-news is far more destructive than a well marketed product. Since my network is quite considerable, many of my acquaintances (or theirs) have at least once experienced a hiring process there, which would hardly be credible as a birthday-party anecdote. So heed for damage.

When giving feedback to the upper HR management in their London office, there was initially much surprise, on the outcome, assuring me that the results I presented were not in line with reports from the said office. It was not so much this fact that I would contest - in all fairness, it had to be expected; a manager would obviously protect his teams, and equally, reporting sometimes is more subjective than realistically objective, as it always serves an ultimate purpose. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to demonstrate the contradictory indicators against the facts. 

It should be a thorough lesson to realise, that HR is by no means an independent scientific discipline, which has the prerogative to act on its own. While many professionals do indeed follow a 'recipe-book approach', many times there is a serious lack of understanding of the company's business as a whole, and the huge risk involved, if not meeting the long-term strategies. Concurrently, there is a noticeable tendency of complacency, even arrogance as well: Some concrete cases reported to the said IT-giant, dealt with an outright concocted reason for rejection, which is a definite no-go. The role of HR is not merely limited, in supplying a company with new flesh, likewise it is to deal with candidates in a highly professional way. Never mind the recipe book, never mind the trained skills. A simple down to earth approach and common sense are needed. And one may re-label it as Talent Acquisition or whichever fancy name, the role remains the same.

In our times, budgets are supposed to be tight. Saving, however, on the most valuable factor in your business - your staff; present or prospective - can result in a disaster, from which a company might face extremely unpleasant difficulties. The players should take each other based on at least an equality basis, at all times, where the company and the candidate are superior to the short-term chores of an HR assistant. Only this way, the interests are optimally met. 

The aforementioned IT company has proven not to be too concerned, as shows from the updated continuous information. Wonder whether the present managers would be able pass the current hiring process. I firmly believe, this is definitively not the last article on human resources. Lest I might forget also to mention: I happen also to know very capable and true professional HR people, albeit they were more difficult to find.