Dear Ashlesha,
Thank you for the post. I have been in the HR field only, and HR is the purpose of my life. I want to grow in the HR domain only, but selecting the hotel industry is familiar to me. Thus, it would be easier for me to climb up the ladder. However, the thing would be that my interview is on 4th May. What should I reply if the HR director asks me about my frequent job changes as I'm applying for the position of HR officer? If I'm not selected, should I start looking for jobs or wait for some more time?
Thank you.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
11Thank you for the post. I have been in the HR field only, and HR is the purpose of my life. I want to grow in the HR domain only, but selecting the hotel industry is familiar to me. Thus, it would be easier for me to climb up the ladder. However, the thing would be that my interview is on 4th May. What should I reply if the HR director asks me about my frequent job changes as I'm applying for the position of HR officer? If I'm not selected, should I start looking for jobs or wait for some more time?
Thank you.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi all,
When an HR rejects a candidate, his mindset is of an "HR," an employee who is recruiting on behalf of the company. So, from his point of view in that position, he is right. Whereas, when the same "HR" person changes the job, he is thinking for himself, remembering that HR is also a common person. Therefore, in both situations, the approach of the HR person is correct.
Tushar
HR Officer
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
When an HR rejects a candidate, his mindset is of an "HR," an employee who is recruiting on behalf of the company. So, from his point of view in that position, he is right. Whereas, when the same "HR" person changes the job, he is thinking for himself, remembering that HR is also a common person. Therefore, in both situations, the approach of the HR person is correct.
Tushar
HR Officer
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ashlesha,
To an extent, you had understood my query related to this thread. Of course, there is a BLAME GAME, and I found fault at both ends, HR & EMPLOYEE. I hope you will agree with this.
In order to meet my ex-organisation's demand, I had recruited FACULTY DOCTORS & ENGINEERS by paying more salary. In other words, to be precise, to meet our requirements, we had to pay more salary, where our requirements gave scope for applicants to put forward their demands. This process created demands for such PROFESSIONALS, hence they too started JOB HOPPING. Considering its disadvantages, MCI and AICTE had imposed STRICT RULES/REGULATIONS for hiring such professionals with a MINIMUM SERVICE PERIOD.
Referring to your point, "I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit." It can't be a closed query. It has many factors associated with it, including domain specialization. Kindly study your own reply by doing a 360-degree evaluation. There is no time limit for gaining knowledge because it's a continuous process but, "Yes, there is a MINIMUM PERIOD to serve an organization."
My reply is very straightforward and more practical in nature. We should try our best to correct the systems rather than blaming someone. You must be aware that everyone, at every level, wishes to earn more and more. An individual's earning capacity is associated with many factors and is proportional to market demand.
I sincerely hope that you had understood what I meant by this query where you haven't replied to "JOB HOPPER.!!!!!.........Let's define this word and its associated factors before we target HR MANAGERS and EMPLOYEES (JOB HOPPERS)."
The ROLE OF HR MANAGERS/PROFESSIONALS is quite substantial when compared with other professionals in any organization.
1) HR PROFESSIONALS are highly responsible for DEFINING EMPLOYEE CAREER ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR FUTURE.
2) HR MANAGERS need to educate EMPLOYEES about DRAWBACKS associated with JOB HOPPING.
3) I agree that HR MANAGERS are aligning their roles with company objectives, but it is not the COMPANY that is in the limelight but HR PROFESSIONALS. HR PROFESSIONALS must and should play a very safe game rather than being blamed for everything.
If you have any queries related to my reply, feel free to get clarified. I believe in doing ROOT ANALYSIS before I try my best to solve any query instead of focusing on the current thread because we should always try to present a permanent solution rather than just solving the present one.
Hope you understood what I mean to convey. Kindly align your PERCEPTION LEVEL with MINE. In fact, we all need to align our perception levels. Only then, you will be able to understand whatever I meant to convey.
Do feel free to correct me, even if I am right.
Good luck guys.
With profound regards,
Ashlesha,
Replying to your post:
PART 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT FIRMS (HR) had tried their best to recruit (PULL) candidates in a very short notice period to deliver their projects on time. At times, employers had even paid applicants notice period pay without giving a thought that,
1) What would be the scenario (in that organization) for pulling/dragging/compelling employees purely for the company's requirement, just by bribing him more pay, but not paying him for his talent?
ANS: In this case, the hiring person is at fault, not for recruiting candidates in a short notice to deliver projects. It is at fault because of relying on means like bribing him more pay. Now, "bribing more pay" also needs to be defined. If more pay means offering a higher salary, then it is not a bribe as you ought to receive a higher salary when you quit. But if it is negotiating with the salary and forcing the person to join, then it is a wrong action.
In some companies, it also happens that people receive more than their talent. But if less is offered to such candidates, then they walk away. In such cases, talent doesn't come into the picture for candidates.
2) What would be the impact on employees' careers?
ANS: Employees would either leave for more money or stay with the existing company. I don't think any hiring person makes an employee's career. It is for them to decide about their willingness to stay or to quit. Yes, but definitely, a hiring person is showing a wrong way to the candidate just to get his/her needs fulfilled. This might lead the employee to think that this is acceptable. But when faced by an organization that strongly opposes it, the employee will be in a difficult situation.
"In this Scenario who is the committed EMPLOYEE here - HR MANAGER or EMPLOYEE?" - this still doesn't specify who is committed because the conclusion is unanswered; whether or not the person accepts the bribe or rejects it. The HR manager could be committed because he is doing his work, but it should be done without any unethical practice. The employee can be tagged committed if he rejects the bribe. Both cases differ here.
PART 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now imagine when the same candidate had applied for ABC FIRM requirement. Even though he is qualified/experienced, if the HR rejects him just because he is a job hopper, what do we have to say now?
ANS: I feel in a way you are relating PART 2 to PART 1, saying that every time a person hops, he/she is bribed. If the same candidate is applying somewhere, he could get rejected because of job hopping. For the same, we should know what job hopping is. If he is hopping after every 8 months - 1 year, he will get rejected. One cannot say that he was bribed every time. And even if he was, come on man, how many times does he want to accept that bribe? It simply means that "I am changing because I am being bribed. I am talented, qualified, experienced, but being bribed, that's why I'm changing/hopping." Now, this cannot be justified because nobody has asked him to quit. He is doing it solely for money's sake. And I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit.
By replying to this post, there is nothing personal. I have supported an HR where required and supported a non-HR employee where required.
I have been honest while replying.
ASHLESHA
I am expecting an HONEST REPLY from all those members who had actively participated in this thread.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To an extent, you had understood my query related to this thread. Of course, there is a BLAME GAME, and I found fault at both ends, HR & EMPLOYEE. I hope you will agree with this.
In order to meet my ex-organisation's demand, I had recruited FACULTY DOCTORS & ENGINEERS by paying more salary. In other words, to be precise, to meet our requirements, we had to pay more salary, where our requirements gave scope for applicants to put forward their demands. This process created demands for such PROFESSIONALS, hence they too started JOB HOPPING. Considering its disadvantages, MCI and AICTE had imposed STRICT RULES/REGULATIONS for hiring such professionals with a MINIMUM SERVICE PERIOD.
Referring to your point, "I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit." It can't be a closed query. It has many factors associated with it, including domain specialization. Kindly study your own reply by doing a 360-degree evaluation. There is no time limit for gaining knowledge because it's a continuous process but, "Yes, there is a MINIMUM PERIOD to serve an organization."
My reply is very straightforward and more practical in nature. We should try our best to correct the systems rather than blaming someone. You must be aware that everyone, at every level, wishes to earn more and more. An individual's earning capacity is associated with many factors and is proportional to market demand.
I sincerely hope that you had understood what I meant by this query where you haven't replied to "JOB HOPPER.!!!!!.........Let's define this word and its associated factors before we target HR MANAGERS and EMPLOYEES (JOB HOPPERS)."
The ROLE OF HR MANAGERS/PROFESSIONALS is quite substantial when compared with other professionals in any organization.
1) HR PROFESSIONALS are highly responsible for DEFINING EMPLOYEE CAREER ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR FUTURE.
2) HR MANAGERS need to educate EMPLOYEES about DRAWBACKS associated with JOB HOPPING.
3) I agree that HR MANAGERS are aligning their roles with company objectives, but it is not the COMPANY that is in the limelight but HR PROFESSIONALS. HR PROFESSIONALS must and should play a very safe game rather than being blamed for everything.
If you have any queries related to my reply, feel free to get clarified. I believe in doing ROOT ANALYSIS before I try my best to solve any query instead of focusing on the current thread because we should always try to present a permanent solution rather than just solving the present one.
Hope you understood what I mean to convey. Kindly align your PERCEPTION LEVEL with MINE. In fact, we all need to align our perception levels. Only then, you will be able to understand whatever I meant to convey.
Do feel free to correct me, even if I am right.
Good luck guys.
With profound regards,
Ashlesha,
Replying to your post:
PART 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT FIRMS (HR) had tried their best to recruit (PULL) candidates in a very short notice period to deliver their projects on time. At times, employers had even paid applicants notice period pay without giving a thought that,
1) What would be the scenario (in that organization) for pulling/dragging/compelling employees purely for the company's requirement, just by bribing him more pay, but not paying him for his talent?
ANS: In this case, the hiring person is at fault, not for recruiting candidates in a short notice to deliver projects. It is at fault because of relying on means like bribing him more pay. Now, "bribing more pay" also needs to be defined. If more pay means offering a higher salary, then it is not a bribe as you ought to receive a higher salary when you quit. But if it is negotiating with the salary and forcing the person to join, then it is a wrong action.
In some companies, it also happens that people receive more than their talent. But if less is offered to such candidates, then they walk away. In such cases, talent doesn't come into the picture for candidates.
2) What would be the impact on employees' careers?
ANS: Employees would either leave for more money or stay with the existing company. I don't think any hiring person makes an employee's career. It is for them to decide about their willingness to stay or to quit. Yes, but definitely, a hiring person is showing a wrong way to the candidate just to get his/her needs fulfilled. This might lead the employee to think that this is acceptable. But when faced by an organization that strongly opposes it, the employee will be in a difficult situation.
"In this Scenario who is the committed EMPLOYEE here - HR MANAGER or EMPLOYEE?" - this still doesn't specify who is committed because the conclusion is unanswered; whether or not the person accepts the bribe or rejects it. The HR manager could be committed because he is doing his work, but it should be done without any unethical practice. The employee can be tagged committed if he rejects the bribe. Both cases differ here.
PART 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now imagine when the same candidate had applied for ABC FIRM requirement. Even though he is qualified/experienced, if the HR rejects him just because he is a job hopper, what do we have to say now?
ANS: I feel in a way you are relating PART 2 to PART 1, saying that every time a person hops, he/she is bribed. If the same candidate is applying somewhere, he could get rejected because of job hopping. For the same, we should know what job hopping is. If he is hopping after every 8 months - 1 year, he will get rejected. One cannot say that he was bribed every time. And even if he was, come on man, how many times does he want to accept that bribe? It simply means that "I am changing because I am being bribed. I am talented, qualified, experienced, but being bribed, that's why I'm changing/hopping." Now, this cannot be justified because nobody has asked him to quit. He is doing it solely for money's sake. And I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit.
By replying to this post, there is nothing personal. I have supported an HR where required and supported a non-HR employee where required.
I have been honest while replying.
ASHLESHA
I am expecting an HONEST REPLY from all those members who had actively participated in this thread.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
In my view, we must never consider employees and HR on the same platform. An employee is just an employee, and the HR person is an employee as well as a part of the management. So when he is recruiting, he is acting on behalf of the management and has the responsibility of hiring the employees who will have a long-term association with the organization. Therefore, if he rejects the applicants, it is his/her duty.
However, when it comes to HR professionals changing jobs frequently, as I mentioned earlier, they are also employees and have the right to explore for growth.
Another point to consider is that I have observed many employees switching jobs merely for monetary benefits. Besides financial reasons, many HR professionals switch jobs for reasons such as satisfaction, new challenges, dignity, etc.
That is why I would say that HR's job-hopping is justified, unlike other employees.
Regards,
KT
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In my view, we must never consider employees and HR on the same platform. An employee is just an employee, and the HR person is an employee as well as a part of the management. So when he is recruiting, he is acting on behalf of the management and has the responsibility of hiring the employees who will have a long-term association with the organization. Therefore, if he rejects the applicants, it is his/her duty.
However, when it comes to HR professionals changing jobs frequently, as I mentioned earlier, they are also employees and have the right to explore for growth.
Another point to consider is that I have observed many employees switching jobs merely for monetary benefits. Besides financial reasons, many HR professionals switch jobs for reasons such as satisfaction, new challenges, dignity, etc.
That is why I would say that HR's job-hopping is justified, unlike other employees.
Regards,
KT
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.