Recruiters And Other HR Folks - What Do YOU Think ?

Good day, everyone!

I am sure many would have seen the interesting discussion that is presently on at LinkedIn. If not, see:

How to Solve the Other Unemployment Crisis | LinkedIn

And I repeat hereunder the comment at the top presently (by Nate W):

"We have a recruiting problem in this country. There are too many middlemen (i.e. HR recruiters and headhunters) that don't add value to the process. Often screening resumes is delegated to someone who doesn't have the expertise to understand the background of a candidate because the hiring manager is too busy. The recruiter is only armed with a checklist of keywords and stock questions. It doesn't make any sense to have the least qualified making hiring decisions. Managers have a responsibility to be actively involved in the recruitment process even if they have to screen a number of resumes. If not, you can't complain about not finding the right employees. Thus, limit the role of HR in recruiting, the use of external recruiters, and increase the role of the hiring manager in the process."

While I do intend to address this comment there, I thought I might also invite the HR people here for their inputs and thoughts.. either here or via the link above!

So will shifting "Screening of Resumes" to the "Hiring Manager" and removing the HR Department/Internal Recruiter/External Third-Party Recruiter from this step help for better and faster recruitment?

Is it being done anywhere? What does the experience show? Any research on this subject?

Look forward to all inputs!

Dear Hardeep,

Greetings!!!

More than good, the topic that you have raised is fresh (with reference to the repetitive topics on cite HR).

My take on this:

Whom do you call "Hiring Manager"? The one who knows the technical aspects of the job—If this is the case, then there is a plethora of research on why technical persons alone should not be making hiring decisions.

Actually, in an attempt to separate chaff from the wheat, you are not looking at behavioral aspects of hiring. Attitude is the last thing an employer wants to change; most corporations want to have people with the right attitude, and that's why HR professionals are assigned to screen resumes—to look for traces of the right attitude. They are there to read between the lines and not only what is written. Such traces can be found in the use of words, formats, length of resumes, etc. There is no doubt a junior recruiter will not be skilled enough to do that, but with experience, they also learn this art.

Moreover, the resume will go through the eyes of the hiring manager anyway because at some point in time, the candidate shall be interviewed by the hiring manager. Actually, the whole interview process is a resume screening process, and that's why there are multiple rounds of interviews. Looking at candidates primarily from a technical expertise point of view and not from a behavioral viewpoint is something that I personally do not support.

However, more inputs are welcome!!!

Thank you.

Hi Shantanu!

Thanks for coming in!

Could you please point me to some specific research links on why the technical manager alone should not be making the hiring decisions?

Attitude is important. At the same time, it is an "intangible" highly susceptible to interpretations and situations. Similarly, "Performance-Based Hiring" is what many people claim they do or should be done. How they really identify such performance beyond what is on CV and reference checks sometimes is also a mystery!

In any case, to my mind, involving the manager early on may lead to many other unforeseen situations. What if the hiring manager repeatedly finds out that people with lesser "experience" than him are earning more than him? Or rejects good people early on itself since he sees them as a threat to himself? Or recommends someone not in line with the salary structure of the company? A recruiter - whether internal or external - tries to balance all these things out and presents only those to the hiring/technical manager which pass such screenings. Besides, of course, saving time for the hiring manager and allowing him to focus on his job.

Just some things that come to mind. Right/wrong/add more!

Would love to have the experienced HR pros share their views!

Hi All!

Just wanted to bring this up in the "mindshare" of the readers since, in my humble opinion (IMHO), it is rather important and deserves more discussions.

To summarize:

a) Recruitment is a major HR process, and screening of resumes is a significant component of that process.

b) Some people feel that Recruiters are essentially a hindrance and not facilitators and do not add value. A specific suggestion is that screening of resumes should be done not by the Recruiter but by the "Hiring Manager" – generally, to whom the position reports.

What is the view of the HR Fraternity? Is this already being done in any organization? What are the results? Kindly share all your views and experiences.

Thanks much!