Dear All, I would like to ask one question: In the Final Interview of the candidate, what factors do we consider that this candidate is the right person for the right job and he will stay for a long time in the company? Sometimes after finalized the candidate considered will resign after sometimes or we will terminate him within the probation period. Please advise what factors an HR Professional will be considered or focused on that he is the right person for the right job and will stay for a long time in the company.
Thanking you
Qasim Raza
From Pakistan, Lahore
1Thanking you
Qasim Raza
From Pakistan, Lahore
Switching pattern in some companies is about 2-3 or 3-4 years and in some companies 1-2 years. This will cover his tenure in a company and not cover his right selection. Maybe this is our personal experience after the selection of the candidate by the panel their selection sometimes may not be right. As a HR professional what terminologies we adopt that our selection is perfect and he will fulfill company expectations.
From Pakistan, Lahore
From Pakistan, Lahore
Dear Qasim,
What you have written is about recruitment. Yes, selecting the "right" candidate for the job was a challenge, it is today and will remain so in future too.
Nevertheless, your challenge is the candidate that you select for a job quit the company. In that case, you need to understand the culture of the company. If the freshly hired employees do not wish to continue with the company, then it could be because of the mismatch between the candidate's expectations and the company's culture. The second reason could be poor leadership of the HODs. While HR may hire the best of the best people, what if the HOD fails to motivate him/her or maltreats him/her? Under such circumstances, the employees will quit anyway.
One of the solutions to your challenge is to do an attrition analysis and find out of the total candidates hired, what % of the employees quit on their own. Was their exit regrettable or non-regrettable?
Your second challenge is you are required to terminate the freshly hired employees during their probation itself. This is clearly a recruitment failure. In such cases, you need to study why did your recruitment go wrong? What questions you had asked during the interview and what was the behaviour at the workplace? Why the recruitment team failed to gauge the behaviour or performance of the candidate is a matter of study.
The solution to your second challenge is to strengthen the recruitment process. Include more technical and non-technical tests. Secondly, are the interviewers formally trained to conduct the job interviews? Who has certified them to become interviewers? Is it that interviewers are not formally trained but by virtue of the length of their service, it is assumed that they are fit to conduct the interviews? Do you conduct competency-based interviews?
Your problem is much deep. While you employ solutions based on the replies by the seniors of this forum, however, much depends on whether the implementation was effective or not.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
What you have written is about recruitment. Yes, selecting the "right" candidate for the job was a challenge, it is today and will remain so in future too.
Nevertheless, your challenge is the candidate that you select for a job quit the company. In that case, you need to understand the culture of the company. If the freshly hired employees do not wish to continue with the company, then it could be because of the mismatch between the candidate's expectations and the company's culture. The second reason could be poor leadership of the HODs. While HR may hire the best of the best people, what if the HOD fails to motivate him/her or maltreats him/her? Under such circumstances, the employees will quit anyway.
One of the solutions to your challenge is to do an attrition analysis and find out of the total candidates hired, what % of the employees quit on their own. Was their exit regrettable or non-regrettable?
Your second challenge is you are required to terminate the freshly hired employees during their probation itself. This is clearly a recruitment failure. In such cases, you need to study why did your recruitment go wrong? What questions you had asked during the interview and what was the behaviour at the workplace? Why the recruitment team failed to gauge the behaviour or performance of the candidate is a matter of study.
The solution to your second challenge is to strengthen the recruitment process. Include more technical and non-technical tests. Secondly, are the interviewers formally trained to conduct the job interviews? Who has certified them to become interviewers? Is it that interviewers are not formally trained but by virtue of the length of their service, it is assumed that they are fit to conduct the interviews? Do you conduct competency-based interviews?
Your problem is much deep. While you employ solutions based on the replies by the seniors of this forum, however, much depends on whether the implementation was effective or not.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Dear Dinesh,
First of all thanks for your reply.
Candidate pre screening is the responsibility of HR and final selection of the right candidate is the responsibility of the concerned HOD’s or top-level management and after some time if the candidate as fresh or experienced left the company then criticized the HR. Why top-level management is considered only responsible is HR and why not HOD’s or Leadership.
My colleague has informed me that their top-level management has terminated the 15 years experienced staff because he has not completed the tasks and is not taking the responsibility for any tasks. What will we pick up or result out in this scenario or consider why an experienced staff is not taking the responsibility.
At this stage who is responsible for his changed behavior or what is the responsibility of a HR to sort out this matter.
From Pakistan, Lahore
First of all thanks for your reply.
Candidate pre screening is the responsibility of HR and final selection of the right candidate is the responsibility of the concerned HOD’s or top-level management and after some time if the candidate as fresh or experienced left the company then criticized the HR. Why top-level management is considered only responsible is HR and why not HOD’s or Leadership.
My colleague has informed me that their top-level management has terminated the 15 years experienced staff because he has not completed the tasks and is not taking the responsibility for any tasks. What will we pick up or result out in this scenario or consider why an experienced staff is not taking the responsibility.
At this stage who is responsible for his changed behavior or what is the responsibility of a HR to sort out this matter.
From Pakistan, Lahore
"My colleague has informed me that their top-level management has terminated the 15 years experienced staff because he has not completed the tasks and is not taking the responsibility for any tasks. What will we pick up or result out in this scenario or consider why an experienced staff is not taking the responsibility.
At this stage who is responsible for his changed behavior or what is the responsibility of a HR to sort out this matter."
A manager allowed a staff member to neglect his duties for 15 years!!! Why hasn't the manager been sacked in this case? It is not a HR matter, it is a line manager problem. Secondly there are many reasons for changed behaviour in employees. A lot of comes down to the way they are treated. If the employee was being micro-managed, given no opportunities for training and development, no promotions etc, etc. Of course people will decide what is the point, and just turn up for their pay. Why bother putting in effort for management that just doesn't care?
I have a problem with the notion that HR does the candidate pre-screening. HR does not work in the relevant department or have intimate knowledge of the job, its requirements, and the type of person needed to fulfil the duties. The relevant department needs to own the recruitment process and select candidates that meet both the job specification and the person specification they have written for the vacancy. HR can do the grunt work like advertising the vacancy, teeing up interviews for the chosen candidates, and then advising the winner and loosers on the outcome. I have never worked in a recruitment process where HR were involved in interviewing for non-HR specific jobs.
From Australia, Melbourne
At this stage who is responsible for his changed behavior or what is the responsibility of a HR to sort out this matter."
A manager allowed a staff member to neglect his duties for 15 years!!! Why hasn't the manager been sacked in this case? It is not a HR matter, it is a line manager problem. Secondly there are many reasons for changed behaviour in employees. A lot of comes down to the way they are treated. If the employee was being micro-managed, given no opportunities for training and development, no promotions etc, etc. Of course people will decide what is the point, and just turn up for their pay. Why bother putting in effort for management that just doesn't care?
I have a problem with the notion that HR does the candidate pre-screening. HR does not work in the relevant department or have intimate knowledge of the job, its requirements, and the type of person needed to fulfil the duties. The relevant department needs to own the recruitment process and select candidates that meet both the job specification and the person specification they have written for the vacancy. HR can do the grunt work like advertising the vacancy, teeing up interviews for the chosen candidates, and then advising the winner and loosers on the outcome. I have never worked in a recruitment process where HR were involved in interviewing for non-HR specific jobs.
From Australia, Melbourne
John,
This reminds me of something I studied in management class 20 years ago.
Its called the Peter Principal.
It says that a person gets promoted if he is good and efficient at his job, and will get promoted again and again till he reaches a position where he is not good at his job. So, unless you terminate inefficient employees, every company will stabilise at its 'Optimum Level Of Inefficiency' because everyone (all supervisors and managers) are inefficient or bad at their jobs.
Of course it is an oversimplification. The question is whether the company has any process of evaluation before and training after promotion and the rapid job changes mades it less likely that inefficient persons will remain managers here.
However, in this case, the OP says that something changed the attitude of the employee. So there is probably more to it than what we know...
From India, Mumbai
This reminds me of something I studied in management class 20 years ago.
Its called the Peter Principal.
It says that a person gets promoted if he is good and efficient at his job, and will get promoted again and again till he reaches a position where he is not good at his job. So, unless you terminate inefficient employees, every company will stabilise at its 'Optimum Level Of Inefficiency' because everyone (all supervisors and managers) are inefficient or bad at their jobs.
Of course it is an oversimplification. The question is whether the company has any process of evaluation before and training after promotion and the rapid job changes mades it less likely that inefficient persons will remain managers here.
However, in this case, the OP says that something changed the attitude of the employee. So there is probably more to it than what we know...
From India, Mumbai
Dear John & Saswata,
I would like to inform you that company is a good reputation in market and gives two bonuses once a year to every employee and focus employees healthy and work life balance so what is the reason we will be considered to suddenly changed employee behavior and not taking up the more responsibility. As a HR do we need to change the organization leadership style or company culture etc.
Thanking you
Qasim Raza
From Pakistan, Lahore
I would like to inform you that company is a good reputation in market and gives two bonuses once a year to every employee and focus employees healthy and work life balance so what is the reason we will be considered to suddenly changed employee behavior and not taking up the more responsibility. As a HR do we need to change the organization leadership style or company culture etc.
Thanking you
Qasim Raza
From Pakistan, Lahore
I do not think HR today is even capable of changing leadership style or even the company culture unless it is mandated or supported by the top management or the owners. You need to focus on something different perhaps. What is the reason why the person was actually removed... Was he incapable of doing that work he was given and he wasn't trained in it
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Agree with my colleague Saswata here.
Company leadership and culture must come from the top. It is for the CEO and his/her management team to set and enforce the standards that must be followed by everyone. It is then for HR to work within those parameters when undertaking its designated functions.
From Australia, Melbourne
Company leadership and culture must come from the top. It is for the CEO and his/her management team to set and enforce the standards that must be followed by everyone. It is then for HR to work within those parameters when undertaking its designated functions.
From Australia, Melbourne
Saswata,
Ah yes, "The Peter Principle". It is an old theory and one that is not talked about so much these days, possibly because management styles have changed over the years.
I don't remember all the details as it is a long, long time since I read the book. However, if I remember correctly he was writing, in part at least, about the UK Civil Service. After I left school, I worked for 20 years for the Australian government and when I joined almost all promotion was done via seniority, not merit. What it meant was that you were promoted when your turn came, and that could take many years. Every year books were published showing your ranking in the service, so you could see how many people were ahead of you in the pecking order. Very scary!!!
That was abolished at some point and when vacancies occurred anyone could apply for the position as people were to be chosen on merit, i.e. did they have what it takes to do the job. Now it was a nice idea in theory, but we all know that there is some bias in selecting candidates for positions. Sadly, within the offices I worked, we all basically knew who would get the job when a position was advertised. We all knew who the boss's friends were and who was good at selling themselves regardless of their poor work skills and ethics. So the wrong people continued to the get the jobs. Now there was a new element to this merit based recruitment, and that was an appeal process. You could lodge an appeal against a decision and if it was judged to have merit, it would be heard by an independent board. But few people managed to overturn a decision. At one point I got promoted to a job next level up, and 4 of my peers appealed the decision. The 4 people in question had been there longer than me, so - theoretically - had more experience and knowledge. However, in terms of work output, ability, skills, and leadership (it was a supervisory position), I ran rings around the other 4. The appeal was dismissed and my promotion was confirmed. Now I suspect that this had been planned as I had been sent on a management course some months earlier, whereas the other 4 had not. The other point was that I was not a buddy of the boss! So nearly 40 years later, I am still mystified how I got the job. I suspect someone higher up the food chain had a hand in it.
From Australia, Melbourne
Ah yes, "The Peter Principle". It is an old theory and one that is not talked about so much these days, possibly because management styles have changed over the years.
I don't remember all the details as it is a long, long time since I read the book. However, if I remember correctly he was writing, in part at least, about the UK Civil Service. After I left school, I worked for 20 years for the Australian government and when I joined almost all promotion was done via seniority, not merit. What it meant was that you were promoted when your turn came, and that could take many years. Every year books were published showing your ranking in the service, so you could see how many people were ahead of you in the pecking order. Very scary!!!
That was abolished at some point and when vacancies occurred anyone could apply for the position as people were to be chosen on merit, i.e. did they have what it takes to do the job. Now it was a nice idea in theory, but we all know that there is some bias in selecting candidates for positions. Sadly, within the offices I worked, we all basically knew who would get the job when a position was advertised. We all knew who the boss's friends were and who was good at selling themselves regardless of their poor work skills and ethics. So the wrong people continued to the get the jobs. Now there was a new element to this merit based recruitment, and that was an appeal process. You could lodge an appeal against a decision and if it was judged to have merit, it would be heard by an independent board. But few people managed to overturn a decision. At one point I got promoted to a job next level up, and 4 of my peers appealed the decision. The 4 people in question had been there longer than me, so - theoretically - had more experience and knowledge. However, in terms of work output, ability, skills, and leadership (it was a supervisory position), I ran rings around the other 4. The appeal was dismissed and my promotion was confirmed. Now I suspect that this had been planned as I had been sent on a management course some months earlier, whereas the other 4 had not. The other point was that I was not a buddy of the boss! So nearly 40 years later, I am still mystified how I got the job. I suspect someone higher up the food chain had a hand in it.
From Australia, Melbourne
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.
Chapter XI - The Mangers as Person.ppt
Pronunciation of Third Person Singular.doc
JD Person Specification Mar 10 - Manager.xls