Personality vs. experience vs. education

[h57zf]

A friend of mine was recently telling me about some changes at his workplace after a new HR director was brought on.

 

In the past, this particular company hired mainly on the basis of one's educational and professional history. Now however, they have added a rubric which puts a big emphasis on things which can't be tangibly measured. Here's a screenshot of the new rubric, as sent by my friend.

 

 

Now I'll concede that having a college degree or above isn't necessarily proof that one will work, but isn't this pushing it? My friend suspects that the new HR guy plans to bring some of his friends on by changing the policies to make it easier for them to get their foot in the door.

 

What do you think?

[Got it]

A friend of mine was recently telling me about some changes at his workplace after a new HR director was brought on.

 

In the past, this particular company hired mainly on the basis of one's educational and professional history. Now however, they have added a rubric which puts a big emphasis on things which can't be tangibly measured. Here's a screenshot of the new rubric, as sent by my friend.

 

 

Now I'll concede that having a college degree or above isn't necessarily proof that one will work, but isn't this pushing it? My friend suspects that the new HR guy plans to bring some of his friends on by changing the policies to make it easier for them to get their foot in the door.

 

What do you think?

 

I don't thinks so. I think what was laid out is a pretty comprehensive look at a candidate. What this worksheet goes over is pretty common, though in different formats, on how many hire. You do look at the subjective. We will use talent assessment tools as well to get to know their thinking, behavioral, and motivational styles.

 

Is this HR director hiring for their department or influencing other departments? Wouldn't there be more than the HR Director involved especially if outside of the HR department? I think you guys might be on a wild goose chase here.

[OpenBook]

What this worksheet goes over is pretty common, though in different formats, on how many hire.

 

Agreed. Everything in that list is normally observed & evaluated during interviews. This is just putting it all on paper and slapping some metrics on it. Your friend's new HR Director appears to be trying to formalize and document the assessment process. Which can get a little dicey. Whenever you put something down on paper, it becomes tangible, physical "evidence" which can be used for good or evil down the road. I can understand why you're a little unsettled by it!!

 

Another caveat - it doesn't take into consideration "gut instinct" - that elusive and undocumentable detection process which can override all the other qualifications a candidate possesses. IMHO, hiring managers need a little elbow room to pick & choose who they hire without having to check all the boxes on a piece of paper.

Edited October 10, 2015 by OpenBook

[h57zf]

The company always took into consideration intangible factors but it was more evenly divided, closer to 50-50. Previously, a placement also required a logical aptitude exam like this one, as well as a verbal reasoning test, but the new HR manager had those axed.

 

But now the vast majority seems to ride on things that can't really be measured other than by a "gut instinct". When a score of 70/100 is enough to get on the shortlist and 80/100 are "personality" or "diversity" - it just seems a bit fishy to me.

Edited October 10, 2015 by h57zf

[acrosstheuniverse]

That's really weird. I can just about see how 'lived experience' is relevant, but the diversity bit is especially strange. I mean, how does one contribute to the team in a 'diverse' way? If I don't have anything that particularly marks me out as being in some way diverse from the 'norm' (for example I'm a straight, white, middle class male who has no religion) that's not exactly something that can be help, do you get extra marks for being a different ethnicity or have wildly coloured hair? I don't get it.

 

And 'willingness to work with people from different backgrounds' that's the strangest part. I mean, surely in the work place it's already assumed and expected you'll work with anyone irregardless of cultural or religious differences, isn't that the baseline, and if you aren't willing to you're simply not hired? And how do you prove you're 'willing' to work with people from different backgrounds, say stuff like 'well my best friend is gay!' throughout the interview?

 

It basically seems set out in a way that you can give the candidate whatever marks you feel like, it's a way of trying to make what is subjective objective so it can be justified to superiors, we all know that above basic experience and qualifications recruiters employ people whose personalities they like and who they feel are a good fit for the team... but to try and assign numbers to that to me is really inappropriate. Not something I've ever come across when asking for feedback from interviews I've been to.

[preraph]

I do think that looks very odd, but I wouldn't attribute it to anything except that they probably hired some college grad who studied HR and has some ideas they want to float. In honestly, it IS mainly the people at a company who are buddies and have things in common with the bosses who last the longest. In my experience, those are usually some of the poorest workers, but nonetheless it's a good 'ol buddy world out there. So in some ways, that's accurate. What I thought looked the most fallacious is the lowest percentile for experience. I guess they are of the opinion that anyone can be trained. And in my experience, companies who start thinking that way do so to justify paying less and hiring nearly all entry-level employees. This is how they justify not giving the job to the most experienced person who applies if in fact what they want is a new drinking buddy or 20-something hot girl to ogle over.

 

I don't like the way it's trending, for my purposes, and that's because I'm a worker who wants to be acknowledged for doing it fast and doing it best, not because the boss thinks I'm a pal, though that would be nice if everything else was in place.

[Maggie4]

It would make a big difference what type of job it is. Otherwise any of us here can be hired without even knowing what the job is. Basically, this assessment gives HR full power, and also assumes the candidate is telling the truth when he talks about his lived experience.

[Got it]

The company always took into consideration intangible factors but it was more evenly divided, closer to 50-50. Previously, a placement also required a logical aptitude exam like this one, as well as a verbal reasoning test, but the new HR manager had those axed.

 

But now the vast majority seems to ride on things that can't really be measured other than by a "gut instinct". When a score of 70/100 is enough to get on the shortlist and 80/100 are "personality" or "diversity" - it just seems a bit fishy to me.

 

The HR Director is not doing things in a vacuum. They are working with upper management. Unless you are at that level, and privy to the conversations, I am really lost how you can truly come up with an assumption on things.

 

It seems like you have a hypothesis/assumption and backing out your reasoning from it. Recruiting is not a science, it's an art, so HR will attempt different approaches to see what works best for the Company's goals. But HR rarely dictates to everyone and they fall in line, CEO and all.

[h57zf]

The HR Director is not doing things in a vacuum. They are working with upper management. Unless you are at that level, and privy to the conversations, I am really lost how you can truly come up with an assumption on things.

 

It seems like you have a hypothesis/assumption and backing out your reasoning from it. Recruiting is not a science, it's an art, so HR will attempt different approaches to see what works best for the Company's goals. But HR rarely dictates to everyone and they fall in line, CEO and all.

 

So if it turns out that he uses his position to get a few of his buddies hired on the basis of their supposed "lived experience," "personality," or "diversity" criteria in spite of those guys having no experience or education, that would be OK to you?

[preraph]

No, but it's beyond your control. The worst turn my best job ever took was when the owner decided to hire his inexperienced ex-brother-in-law and place him in a high position as VP. The guy, for no reason other than just outright bias against nonsubmissive women, hated me from the beginning and it was only a matter of time before he found a way to oust me. I've never liked working in offices where people bring in friends (and sometimes family) It's an automatic clique.

[Got it]

So if it turns out that he uses his position to get a few of his buddies hired on the basis of their supposed "lived experience," "personality," or "diversity" criteria in spite of those guys having no experience or education, that would be OK to you?

 

If he is hiring for another department then he isn't getting them hired with out other managers also agreeing to hire them. If he is hiring in his department, well then, he will have to deal with the consequences of hiring friends over the best candidates. So unless there is a policy against hiring friends then he isn't breaking any policies.

 

I wouldn't hire friends or family under me because I want to be able manage properly and that would be too difficult. In regards to other departments, I don't push candidates but it commonly happens. I have seen many hire in a quid pro quo set up with prior acquaintances and friends. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

 

But again unless you know the exact hiring practices going on, who is making the decision, I am still hard pressed how he is getting them hired. Maybe in the door but more than the HR Director is interviewing and evaluating correct?

[Got it]

I will say, based on some of our owner's past mistakes we actually are very much against hiring friends, family or acquaintances. So there is no referral program and there is definite concern of too much familiarity and potential for collusion. We are pretty extreme, though, than most companies. Many are very much into having a referral program and assume like attracts like. So, in a short answer, openly hire friends/references of current employees.

[applej4]

No, but it's beyond your control. The worst turn my best job ever took was when the owner decided to hire his inexperienced ex-brother-in-law and place him in a high position as VP. The guy, for no reason other than just outright bias against nonsubmissive women, hated me from the beginning and it was only a matter of time before he found a way to oust me. I've never liked working in offices where people bring in friends (and sometimes family) It's an automatic clique.

 

I agree. I’m retired now but in the past I worked in several offices where friends and family members were hired. There was ALWAYS automatic favoritism. Also, people treaded very carefully and although they grinned in faces they wouldn’t openly/honestly express themselves. They were afraid to say anything even mildly critical for fear it would be repeated and used against them. Family members and friends pretty much did as they pleased….absenteeism, tardiness, doing personal things while being paid, all that was overlooked. The worst was when boss’s wife was office manager or in a position of authority. Ugh. People sucked up and collected brownie points. If family member doesn't like you, you better just look for another job.

[pink_sugar]

The only real issue I have with this sheet is about so much weight being on one's personal life. If you have a new hire, you aren't going to even know all that much about everything the they do outside of work. I am actually a pretty private person and what I do after I clock out is my personal business. Now if they want to give credit for volunteer work, great! Anything else isn't really relevant. 5 pointa for a Bachelor's degree isn't unreasonable...it should be a factor though...people have loans and debt to pay and they didn't go tp school for nothing. I can understand personality as to make sure the individual is a good fit for the culture, though a company should keep in mind that everyone is unique...introverts need work too. Experience is generally most important. I think how it is weighed might depend on the individual though...if someone didn't have much experience...degree, personality and volunteeer experience matter more.

Edited October 15, 2015 by pink_sugar

[applej4]

I learned a long time ago that if an interviewer says "We're all faaaaaamily" to RUN. If they talked about going to each other's houses on weekends, I ran faster. I needed a job, not more relatives.

[pink_sugar]

I learned a long time ago that if an interviewer says "We're all faaaaaamily" to RUN. If they talked about going to each other's houses on weekends, I ran faster. I needed a job, not more relatives.

 

My current job is like this. God, it reminds me so much of high school with all the cliques. It can be a fun group at times, but I prefer to separate my personal life at work. It's one thing if I meet one or two people I really click with, but there is so much pressure to talk to everyone on a daily basis and I see personal lives discussed with managers and HR. I enjoy a casual work environment, but this is too much. I'm a private person and don't need to feel like I have to socialize with everyone to fit in.

 

On Sunday, 90% of the office is going to a breast cancer walk that we sponsor super early in the AM. I am choosing not to go. I do enough of that getting up early during the workweek. I wouldn't mind going if it was later, but I hate feeling the obligation like everyone else is going, so I probably should too thing.

Edited October 15, 2015 by pink_sugar