Gatekeepers and Screeners at the door - That's what HR recruiters call themselves!

As mentioned in the prior post I got a bunch of responses to my questions on HR and Recruiting. Some of the responses were just amazing!!!

Listed below is the query I framed and a few selected responses -


"Quite often I hear - "... a resume has less than 30 seconds to make an impact to a recruiter - independent or corporate HR.." WHY?"

- "Let me first correct you: It takes 3-10 seconds to review a resume to verify if it meets qualifications for a majority of positions. If it was 30 seconds, I would never get any work done."

-  "Because time is money."

- "10-15 seconds tops... You have to market yourself if you are missing some requirements on the job description...otherwise 10 seconds is all you will get."

- "My goodness, I don't read resumes for a living, but do you know how many of these answers I could skim over in 30 seconds and get a pretty darn good idea of what they were talking about?"

- "For the same reason cyber security is in such great (sic) shape in this country and beyond. As far as I can tell that's 29 seconds past the maximum attention span of most recruiters."

- "The way we see the problem is often greater than the problem we're trying to solve.

To most people;

1. Busy = important, 30 seconds "I must be busy, I'm important"
2. Decision Making = Important, "5's" (performance level relative to the 1,000's in their industry) aren't asked their thoughts on "move the needle" issues, thus, why not make it up in volume, 30 seconds at a time ... important again
3. Believe their intentions are good; say a prayer and move on

I coach the coachable HR people on how to do the process more effectively and efficiently. However, my systems reward / create consequences for HR performance as most don't.

Litmus Test on the Culture of an HR Dept:

What % of the HR Payroll will be paid, regardless of who is hired?
Example: $5M in salaries and $4.7 is paid regardless while $4.9 - $5.1 has a 95% chance of getting paid. Where's the motivation?

Life's too short to worry about it unless you're helping someone that is open to changing it." 

- "They're not, by and large, out there searching for talent. They're the gatekeepers, who screen applications sent in."

- "Because HR people are the equivalent of soccer goalies - their job is not to let anyone in but to keep just about everyone out. ...Getting your resume or a letter in front of the hiring manager is the only way you can get through the stonewall the square peg HR gatekeepers put in your path."


Now keep in mind the above are just a few excerpts from from about 25% of the responses received, the majority of them were basically of the opinion "How dare I ask this question and bring this issue up!".

Well here are a few of my rebuttals - enjoy!

- "...most of the responses seem to validate the "30 Second" rule / hypothesis.

So taking that for a baseline if one was a great recruiter and received and average of 100 resumes a day, that's about 50mins of your time in the day. I'll be generous and round it up to 60min, wait I'll be magnanimous and give you 1min per resume that's 2 hours of your day every single day of the month. Almost every recruiter out in the field would kill for those kind of potential leads, the fact is none have them, get them, or come even come close to generating them!

So, what do you do the rest of the day? Waste of company time and money if internal Dept. and do outrageously high billing if an external recruiter!

If I was a CEO/CFO/COO I would take a quick look at my HR recruiting Dept and partner recruiting companies and FIRE THEM! HR guys you just discredited your entire industry! You just proved that you provide very little value addition to the hiring process which can be completely substituted by an automated system, albeit one that may require a little more fine tuning"

- "The responses here themselves say a resume is a way to get your "toe" into the door! How can you make a judgement call for an individual by "seeing" their so called "toes" only? It's like the story of the 5 blind men who touched a different part of an elephant and came to a different set of conclusions as to what it was and what it could do, without seeing or even feeling the entire elephant."

- "...almost every other function that you said a "Generalist" may handle has been outsourced or is in the process of being outsourced and automated, or the employee is being "empowered" to handle on their own with the service provider.

So the one pure HR function that you can add value to internally is recruiting, however if that seems too much for most don't blame outsourcing and automation when it takes over completely. What you call "screening" can be done by anyone sitting half way around the world in a window less room, and then making an appointment for the hiring individual by an email or a phone call."

- "...In this day and age of almost 12% unemployment in the US, why employers are unable to fill positions with the "right" and properly "qualified" candidates is the mystery worth exploring..."

 

What does "Over-Qualified" mean for Today's Workers?

Yesterday, I asked a few HR and Recruiting related questions on the social networking site Linked In. I received a bunch of responses.

One a of the few that I found interesting was withdrawn for publishing by the respondent for some reason. However, since they responded to me I will publish the response in my blog for the benefit of everyone to review. I would love to give credit to the writer of this, however the person who actually penned the following statement does not want to have their views published or wishes to remain anonymous. Therefore, I am not identifying them, except to let everyone know that she is a Professional Career Coach with a Global HR Solutions provider.

Typically, "Over-Qualified" for a position in the US is used as a euphemisms for being "too-old" for the particular position or even company culture. Her take -

"I'll respond to being "overqualified." If you are 35 and spent the last 5 yrs in a managerial role and were not "hands-on" then apply for an individual contributor role with no management/supervisory responsibility, you are "overqualified." WHY? Most likely, no matter how much the applicant says they are "ok" not managing people, most likely they will not be a "fit" and will seek a better opportunity before the company sees it's ROI. The applicant isn't "old" but used to working in a different capacity than the job being offered.

Again, if an applicant has 10+ yrs of HR exp at the Dir and above level, they are OVERQUALIFIED to be the HR Assoc responsible for scheduling interviews, processing paperwork, and ordering lunches for the departmental meetings.

Are there cases when applicants may be discriminated against for age? Of course, but a good HR/Recruiter will look for fit and most often we know and have experienced the downside of hiring an overqualified person for a job. Only once in my career did it work and it was because the employee admittedly wanted a "place to hang out" until he retired in 2yrs."

Hope the above helps...