Hi, I would like to address — - why females are more dominant in recruitments than man...
From India, Delhi
1From India, Delhi
Hello Satish Mishra, Any particular reason(s) for this query of your’s? Is this related to any Project/Assignment work? Rgds, TS
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Satis,
Let me quote the reasons without pulling punches, of course. I know my statements always ruffle few feathers but then I am helpless. The reasons are as below:
a) Lack of self-awareness. This is because lack of personality development
b) Disinclination to take challenges. There are lot of jobs available in operations, supply chain, marketing, advertising etc. But it may not table and chair job. Recruiters prefer to slog on chair rather than on shop floor or field.
c) Many of them lack analytical skills. This is because poor command over Maths and Stats. Many other disciplines demand command over these two subjects.
d) Lack of love for money. It is inner urge to earn more money that drives one's ambition. I have seen few recruiters quite complacent.
e) Inability to plan one's career. Unfortunately, sometimes MBAs end up as recruiters. This is because of lack of self esteem.
f) Recruiters don't have to rub their shoulders with average people. Sometimes senior professionals in other discipline have to deal with mediocre people. Recruiters in contrast have their own haven in which they find birds of their feather.
Nevertheless, recruiter's job is plain grind. It has its own challenges. Sometimes candidates give least regard to recruiters. They do not turn up for interview. Selected candidates do not turn up for job. Plus there is pressure for closure for 'x' number of positions.
However, when one get stuck in this drudgery, it is very difficult to come out also. Job of company recruiter is better than agency recruiter. Former has some chance to jump to some other function vertically. Latter has none.
The other factors for women are marriage and going family way. But then these are universal and recruiters only cannot be singled out.
Since you asked this question, I have given my observations. However, my boldness should not be construed as boorishness.
DVD
From India, Bangalore
Let me quote the reasons without pulling punches, of course. I know my statements always ruffle few feathers but then I am helpless. The reasons are as below:
a) Lack of self-awareness. This is because lack of personality development
b) Disinclination to take challenges. There are lot of jobs available in operations, supply chain, marketing, advertising etc. But it may not table and chair job. Recruiters prefer to slog on chair rather than on shop floor or field.
c) Many of them lack analytical skills. This is because poor command over Maths and Stats. Many other disciplines demand command over these two subjects.
d) Lack of love for money. It is inner urge to earn more money that drives one's ambition. I have seen few recruiters quite complacent.
e) Inability to plan one's career. Unfortunately, sometimes MBAs end up as recruiters. This is because of lack of self esteem.
f) Recruiters don't have to rub their shoulders with average people. Sometimes senior professionals in other discipline have to deal with mediocre people. Recruiters in contrast have their own haven in which they find birds of their feather.
Nevertheless, recruiter's job is plain grind. It has its own challenges. Sometimes candidates give least regard to recruiters. They do not turn up for interview. Selected candidates do not turn up for job. Plus there is pressure for closure for 'x' number of positions.
However, when one get stuck in this drudgery, it is very difficult to come out also. Job of company recruiter is better than agency recruiter. Former has some chance to jump to some other function vertically. Latter has none.
The other factors for women are marriage and going family way. But then these are universal and recruiters only cannot be singled out.
Since you asked this question, I have given my observations. However, my boldness should not be construed as boorishness.
DVD
From India, Bangalore
Dear Mr. Dinesh,
You have a wrong perception about recruiters. You may have dealt with the recruiters who doesnt have knowledge & spark to grow even in every function has few candidates who has lacking of knowledge, analytical skills, Maths & stas etc. Many people doesnt know anythng about it but they have grown like MD & EDs..
Whatever you have said its because of your thoughts & understanding. I would say a good recruiter works simultaneously with an HR head and fill the gaap of talent in the organisation.
A recruiter more seriously works on his assignment than any other functional candidate. recruiter can earn more than 50K every month as an incentive but other functional candidate can not.
And a general recruiter with 2-3 yrs of exp earn more than a similar yrs exp HR or training candidate, if you need i can send you their CVs.
I have given my observations. However, my boldness should not be construed as boorishness.
Now we talk about why woman are more dominant.....??
Because woman is soft corner & more attractive, most of people give more attention to them, easily build relationship with anyone.
otherwise a man can also perform more than a woman candidate. thats it.
Thanks
CMS
From India, Delhi
You have a wrong perception about recruiters. You may have dealt with the recruiters who doesnt have knowledge & spark to grow even in every function has few candidates who has lacking of knowledge, analytical skills, Maths & stas etc. Many people doesnt know anythng about it but they have grown like MD & EDs..
Whatever you have said its because of your thoughts & understanding. I would say a good recruiter works simultaneously with an HR head and fill the gaap of talent in the organisation.
A recruiter more seriously works on his assignment than any other functional candidate. recruiter can earn more than 50K every month as an incentive but other functional candidate can not.
And a general recruiter with 2-3 yrs of exp earn more than a similar yrs exp HR or training candidate, if you need i can send you their CVs.
I have given my observations. However, my boldness should not be construed as boorishness.
Now we talk about why woman are more dominant.....??
Because woman is soft corner & more attractive, most of people give more attention to them, easily build relationship with anyone.
otherwise a man can also perform more than a woman candidate. thats it.
Thanks
CMS
From India, Delhi
So Mr. Dinesh wants to say that women do not have analytical skills and they donot want to take challenging jobs...????? :(
Please correct me if I've understood the wrong way... This is what I understood from this Post..???
Regards,
Bharghavi
From India, Bangalore
Please correct me if I've understood the wrong way... This is what I understood from this Post..???
Regards,
Bharghavi
From India, Bangalore
Dear Bharghavi,
You have not understood correctly. I have written about recruiter tribe only and not womenfolk as a whole. In fact in my post, I have not singled out women but comments are applicable to either gender.
With role models like Chanda Kochar, Indra Nooyi, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, who would say that women have less analytical power? But then why recruiters do not take inspiration from them?
My observations are based on the training activities. I have handled training for recruiters. At times I found MBAs to be resume-screeners and not even proper recruiters.
For scores of them being a recruiter is stop gap arrangement till they move on to other assignments. But for few this may not happen to all.
For Caliber Management Services: - This is about few becoming ED or MD. t is not a question who becomes what. There could be exceptions as well.
I have seen a case where one time courier runs a 60 Crore company and one time pharma delivery boy runs 300 Crore or so company. However, with their analytical skills they could have made it to 600 Crore and 3,000 Crore. As far as latter example is concerned, in my pre-training activity, much to my horror I discovered that pharma distribution company was losing Rs 5,000/- per day because of wrong deliveries!
I request you to go through the comments, ponder over it and then react rather than giving knee jerk reaction!
DVD
From India, Bangalore
You have not understood correctly. I have written about recruiter tribe only and not womenfolk as a whole. In fact in my post, I have not singled out women but comments are applicable to either gender.
With role models like Chanda Kochar, Indra Nooyi, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, who would say that women have less analytical power? But then why recruiters do not take inspiration from them?
My observations are based on the training activities. I have handled training for recruiters. At times I found MBAs to be resume-screeners and not even proper recruiters.
For scores of them being a recruiter is stop gap arrangement till they move on to other assignments. But for few this may not happen to all.
For Caliber Management Services: - This is about few becoming ED or MD. t is not a question who becomes what. There could be exceptions as well.
I have seen a case where one time courier runs a 60 Crore company and one time pharma delivery boy runs 300 Crore or so company. However, with their analytical skills they could have made it to 600 Crore and 3,000 Crore. As far as latter example is concerned, in my pre-training activity, much to my horror I discovered that pharma distribution company was losing Rs 5,000/- per day because of wrong deliveries!
I request you to go through the comments, ponder over it and then react rather than giving knee jerk reaction!
DVD
From India, Bangalore
Dear Satish Mishra,
While addressing the issue, members would also like to know your point of view / observation / experience. Suggest you to give some input as to how did you come to such a conclusion.
From India, Ahmedabad
While addressing the issue, members would also like to know your point of view / observation / experience. Suggest you to give some input as to how did you come to such a conclusion.
From India, Ahmedabad
Yes! Recruitment is female dominant industry, probable reasons can be as below.
1. Pleasing voice, Get attention
2. Usually poses good communication.
3. They are most probable to reach out for a seating job.
4. Sometimes their job search end at the gate of a recruitment agency.
and can be many other reasons.
From India, Karnal
1. Pleasing voice, Get attention
2. Usually poses good communication.
3. They are most probable to reach out for a seating job.
4. Sometimes their job search end at the gate of a recruitment agency.
and can be many other reasons.
From India, Karnal
You are right Hiral Mehta--I started the responses chain with the same aspect in mind, but it got veered away in a different direction along the way.
I would suggest ALL Senior & Contributing Members to desist from responding to threads with incomplete/insufficient/nil background info for their queries--howsoever tempting it may be to respond. Even though this is most often noticed among new members, this particular gentleman [Satish Mishra] DEFINITELY wouldn't fall into that category--he has been a member since Oct, 2007 & ought to know the rules of the game, so to say.
On one side, all of us crib that many members DON'T give all the info needed for others to give suggestions/advice & at the SAME TIME, the responses flow with speed & more so with assumptions as per the individual member's understanding/experiences. Maybe we are encouraging such members NOT TO REALLY WORRY about giving the FULL info while posting their threads?
All of us are from the HR fraternity--and going by simple human psychology, why would a general person take extra pains to do something when his/her PERCEPTION is that IT'S NOT NEEDED? Aren't all of us responsible to create this perception, in the First Place?
Just give a thought.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
I would suggest ALL Senior & Contributing Members to desist from responding to threads with incomplete/insufficient/nil background info for their queries--howsoever tempting it may be to respond. Even though this is most often noticed among new members, this particular gentleman [Satish Mishra] DEFINITELY wouldn't fall into that category--he has been a member since Oct, 2007 & ought to know the rules of the game, so to say.
On one side, all of us crib that many members DON'T give all the info needed for others to give suggestions/advice & at the SAME TIME, the responses flow with speed & more so with assumptions as per the individual member's understanding/experiences. Maybe we are encouraging such members NOT TO REALLY WORRY about giving the FULL info while posting their threads?
All of us are from the HR fraternity--and going by simple human psychology, why would a general person take extra pains to do something when his/her PERCEPTION is that IT'S NOT NEEDED? Aren't all of us responsible to create this perception, in the First Place?
Just give a thought.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Why do female Indian motorcyclits not wear helmets.zip
Gen X Female Employees of the IT Sector.docx