On hiring for tech positions: How do you get what you need from the HR department?
I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard a manager complain, “The HR department included ‘must have college degree’ in the job req even though I don’t care” or “They asked for 5 years of experience in a technology that’s only been around for 3” or “I have no idea why they rejected this candidate without even contacting me.”
Still, in many cases you don’t have a choice. If you want to hire someone, you need to deal with HR, at least to a small degree – especially if you work in a big company.
So I’m writing a feature story for technology managers, collecting real-world advice from people who learned their lessons the hard way. Here’s the questions I’d like you to answer:
• Tell me about a frustration you had with the HR department (in regard to hiring). That is, tell me a personal story of HR-gone-wrong. Because we all love schadenfreude, and that gives me an emotional example with which to begin.
• Let’s say you have a new opening in your department. In what ways do you involve HR? (That could be anything from, “give them general guidelines and let them choose the best candidates for me to interview” to “I do the search myself, and use HR only for on-boarding.”) What makes you choose that path? How much choice do you have in the matter?
• What weaknesses have you discovered in your HR department’s ability to serve the needs of a tech-focused department?
• What have you done to cope with those weaknesses? Which of those efforts worked, and which failed?
• What do you wish you knew “n” years ago about dealing with your company’s HR department?
• So that I can give the reader some context: Let me know how to refer to you in the article (at least, “Esther, a software architect at a Midwest insurance company”), and give me some idea of your company size (because the processes appropriate for a 70-person company aren’t the same for one with 7,000 employees).
You don’t have to answer all those questions! I asked these to get the conversation going. Tell me as much or as little as you like.
Please don’t assume that I think HR always sucks. However, there isn’t as much to learn from “why HR is your friend.” The idea here is to help techie managers cope when HR doesn’t offer what you hoped for.
Hello, HR person here. How about I answer some of these and let you know why sometimes it is a frustrating experience.
"HR" in this situation includes many different people. You are going to have compensation and recruiters who will need to intake properly communicated qualifications and find people that meet that criteria. Everyone who is considered a candidate has to be taken through the wringer in as similar as possible in a legally defensible manner (i.e. you aren't discriminating against your talent pool). This is extremely important for compliance with the OFCCP. Looking at that link there is a lot involved with this step.
Then once you choose a candidate, you still have to compensate them which where Compensation comes in. Most managers aren't going to know the intricate details of what their competitors are doing in this area nor do they know what the labor market looks like to give a decent offer that doesn't break the department's budget.
Then Learning and Organizational Development comes in to help onboard a new hire. Poor onboarding can lead to a very good new hire to leave the workplace before a year is up. This wastes everyone's time and many positions are extremely costly to fill. In addition, my experience would say that many tech managers don't realize how important a structured onboarding program is to retaining those new hires. A lot needs to go into it to make new hires feel comfortable in their role.
SHRM
From an HR perspective, what is the weakness of other departments? I would say a lack of understanding on labor laws in the state, an inflexibility to work within these laws, and a general dismissiveness to any research and practice from research in the industrial organizational psychology sphere. I spent time in graduate school researching and understanding things like organizational justice, job characteristics theory, organizational behavior management, and reading all sorts of screwed up court case reviews in employment law like Duke v Griggs Power, Meritor Savings Bank v Vintor, Pricewaterhouse v Cooper, Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, only to be told that HR's bureacratic process is unnecessary and "I know what's best". Meanwhile, only white dudes in their 20s and 30s are hired, sexual harassment complaints become a real liability, and no one wants to work for the company because its gotten a bad rep on glassdoor.
I have found the best companies are those that utilize HR in a business partner format where HR is there for guidance and help, while the managers respects the advice and work to make an enjoyable work environment for their team.
Are there bad HR reps out there that seem out of touch and unhelpful? Absolutely.
Are there bad managers out there that will break employment compliance because they deem its dumb? Absolutely.
I could make a big write up similar to this about how IT gets in my way at work. But I won't because even though I can't install Chrome extensions on my machine, I'm confident that the IT people know more about network security than I do. I know they deal with the lowest common denominator in the organization and that typically shapes their processes and focus. Its absolutely the same thing in HR.
I have some really good details that I'd like to give you, but can't for no-foolin'-around fear of litigation. Likewise, my given name and precise role aren't something I can comfortably divulge, other than "Technical Services Manager in healthcare, 20k employee company".
But here are a few bullet points:
This is an excellent list.
I'm a manager at a fortune 500 tech company.
Everything is mostly self service. My HR system is significantly more flexible than patience_limited's. I post the job offer internally, Recruitment posts it externally, I ask to review all the resumes, either I or recruitment schedule the interviews, I do the reference checks, HR determines the salary and creates the job offer, I work with the candidate to justify any extra pay they might request above what HR initially offers, I track approvals and communicate status with the applicant throughout the process, then I try to ensure onboarding is as smooth as possible.
It took me a while to write a job description I was happy with. Everyone has their own personal style. It's good to stand out a little.
Interviewing is hard. Behavioral questions. Real life examples. Dig into warning signs on the resume. I take copious notes, and I have a checklist on what I am looking for. Anything I'm not sure about, I ask the interview team to drill into. Even if I know the candidate personally, they all go through the same process.
I've learned to listen very carefully to any doubts expressed by the interview team, and to listen very, very carefully to what the references say. Plus remember, LinkedIn is your friend.
I basically look over the HR drone's shoulder while they write the job listing, and verbally abuse them every time they screw up. It's the only way to be sure.
Why not just supply them with a job description and requirements?
you should post this on hacker news
I did. No responses.
I'm not too surprised. Most of HN is startups, and they don't have the same issues with HR. My gut feeling (and one of the things I'm hoping to test here) is that the issues are more common in larger organizations, where process overtakes productivity.
You guys are awesome. This is useful feedback!