HI everyone, its been quite a while since I've blogged and I thought I'd get back up to speed with blogging. Please remember that the views expressed on this blog is mostly related to my personal views. I don't force these views unto you but simply present them to the public. If you get angry with my view, please don't. It's only a way of expressing my experience.
I've been thinking lately about something that is disturbing me greatly. I've spoken before about bad H.R practices in the past and I've seen consistently where Human Resource personnel fail to make good decisions. Particularly, I'm speaking from some level of experience especially since from time to time, I send resumes out to companies in Trinidad and Tobago. Of course, this blog topic doesn't apply only to Trinidad and Tobago but I am basing my writings as of current on Trinidad and Tobago.
Out of approximately 20 resumes sent out, I tend to get responses from only 1 or 2. I've always asked myself why this happens. I've gone through extensive alterations / version controls just like when I am programming to see whether its based on format, content, more credentials, less credentials, more qualifications, less qualifications... etc...
I think this needs to be at the top of the list because I am aware that this happens often. Companies and organizations that already have an 'in-house candidate' that they already like still follow the process of advertising for the position. The problem that arises is that the personnel on the panel have already made up their minds to the point that it is nearly impossible to convince them to choose you (the person being interviewed). What results is a time wasting procedure particularly for the person being interviewed. Can you imagine how much of wasted time is produced if a company interviews the top 10 list and finds no suitable candidates. Time is money. I am nearly certain that many Human Resource personnel would not like their time to be wasted but then again, I've come across many ill-tempered human resource workers in my years of work.
I've heard Human Resource managers and human resource workers say that they talk to other people and based on what those people say, they either decide to short list the candidate or reject the candidate. While is possible sense to this, in many situations, this is a very dangerous, inaccurate way of determining a suitable candidate. Particularly because I hardly hear people talk good about people who are leaving an organization. Even from my own personal experience, I believe that I've been hurt and damaged by this process. Most people leave an organization when they are seeking something better or unhappy with the current organization. The organization on the other hand is interested in saving face. If you can see this angle, you'll realize that most workers work (with the minor exceptions) and most organizations try to be something they aren't but are seeking to get better. In the process, you hardly find an organization apologizing. So really, I actually question which one is the dangerous one... the people who want better wages or working conditions or the organization and the h.r practices which seem to be like shopping on amazon or ebay for the cheapest deal. It's downright disturbing.
Decisions based on qualifications alone
It is a dangerous thing to base your entire decision of short listing on qualifications only. Especially when it comes to computer science and IT. Particularly because the majority of people I come across in IT can't build a simple program. I ask, how is this possible? How do they get the jobs and I can't land one. Simply put, I believe Human Resources have not been up to speed with talent. I've questioned people with phDs in their fields and many have had to admit that they didn't know something. This is simply because a qualification isn't the deciding factor for getting something done. Practicality and option to prove someone can do it should matter but it doesn't seem to be that way with many H.R.
No proper testing or evaluation
Winning interviews is simple. You tell them what you want them to hear. But really, is that really what makes an organization better? Not to me. I could butter up the interviewers in an interview and that might land me the job. So what happens when you're in the job and realize you're head over heels. You see many interviewers on the panel are setting people up for failure. They think they are doing something good by giving someone a job but really, I don't think many see the real responsibility given to them. Sure, there are times when you are aware that the person doesn't have enough experience but your systems have to be in place for them to learn and get better. If you don't have that, why on earth would you hire someone to insult them, to make them feel like less of a human being when they fail to meet what you want.
These are just some of the things I've seen job hunting in Trinidad and Tobago. I'm sure there's more and I'm sure someone will post a really nasty comment about me. Of that I am certain.