On hiring for tech positions: How do you get what you need from the HR department?

Hello, HR person here. How about I answer some of these and let you know why sometimes it is a frustrating experience.

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?

"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.

• Half of all senior outside hires fail within 18 months in a new position.
• Half of all hourly workers leave new jobs within the first 120 days.
  SHRM

What weaknesses have you discovered in your HR department’s ability to serve the needs of a tech-focused department?

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:

• We use a largely automated, all-in-one system for getting approvals to open a position, post the opening, receive resumes, schedule interviews, decline or approve applicants, and bring hired employees on board.
• It does not have features for managing a second interview.
• The HR team doesn't have to be heavily involved for routine hires, but there's no ability to tailor canned job descriptions without special pleading and sometimes C-suite level intervention.
• The HR departments I've worked with share one feature in common - understaffing. It's getting worse because HR personnel are laid off when the automation arrives, even if you need them to manage the gaps in the automated system, or help with matters other than hiring. The remaining HR staff don't know what you need, and don't have the time to ask. You're better off giving them a list of the real qualifications you desire. They'll usually at least append them to the canned listing for the title you're hiring for.
• It's not fair to applicants who've spent the time to go through the cumbersome application process, only to be rejected at first pass for qualifications they had no way of knowing they needed. I respond personally on each application that met the listed requirements, and pass resumes that might fit needs to other managers.
• Don't assume that HR will permit you to fire someone simply for lying outrageously about their qualifications. If they pass the background check and get hired, you may be stuck until they've messily proven uncorrectable incompetence a few times.
• Given the limitations and unreliability of job descriptions and resumes, it's up to the manager to verify as much as possible and legally permissible. Test the heck out of applicants in near-real world scenarios, and bring the team in for anything you didn't think of. A good interview should take at least a couple of hours.
• Networking with colleagues will give you more reliable candidates than public job postings through HR.
• If you're thoroughly jammed up and covering for short-staffing already, then sifting resumes and interviewing candidates that haven't come through peer filtering can be a maddening time-sink. However, if you've got little time to fill a position and specialized requirements, it's essential to broaden the applicant pool. Use HR for access to recruiters, paid job board postings, and so on.

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.

you should post this on hacker news