HR Question: Employing People as Viewed From Project Perspective

This discourse sounds more like the protestations of an unsuccessful job applicant.

As a former hiring manager in engineering firms, I have hired directly, and used head hunters.

I find fault with almost everything you say here.

I do not speak for HR departments in very large companies. In the only huge company where I worked it was common to have HR call and say, "come down and meet your new employee". That likely will be the first contact you have had with your new employee.

Now, speaking of smaller companies, if you hire directly, you may not be able to find the right employee in a specific time frame, unless you want "someone in 3 weeks".

Then you may as well hire a "job shopper" or, professional temporary employee. Then there is no obligation on either side for long term employment. I've seen some who come to work on Monday, then by Wednesday they are already trolling for a better job.

Professional recruiters do look on the hiring practice as a project. They may have as many as 50, or more such "projects" going at any time, so they won't devote much time to your project exclusively.

Recruiters are accountable for costs, in that they get a % of the salary paid to the successful applicant, or a set fee.

It is still difficult to fill positions, even today, depending on the requirements and pay scale.

I agree with you lyn,

I thought this was really one sided.

Recruiters are accountable for costs, in that they get a % of the salary paid to the successful applicant, or a set fee

Not to mention a finders fee on finding a new employee which can be quite lucrative.

At times in excess of $10,000.00.

Sorry to burst your bubble and assumption Lyn. It is pure hypothetical and a sensible question coming from a PM on multimillion $ HV Elec projects. Simply to do with the skills shortage and aging employees and no FW's to fill the gap.

If you find fault with everything I say then open your mouth or exercise your fingers and state it clearly, after all it is a forum, and and a topic for discussion. Your sarcasm falls flat when you actually state something sensible and factual.

I think the biggest problem, is that HR people don't see themselves, or their departments, as having anything to do with the overall productivity/profitablity of the company.

Kind of like IT people. They see a computer problem and try to fix it, but they don't relate that problem to the company's bottom line, and usually couldn't care less.

This is a lack of systems thinking and a sign of poor Quality in a company. A company with a good Quality culture will have all of its employees, from the CEO down to the janitorial staff, able to answer the question, "How does your job improve the Quality delivered to our Customer?"

When you can't see how your job is aligned to the overall productivity/profitability of the company, you tend to optimize your small portion by off-loading costs to other areas instead of fixing the problems.

Really? Where in your OP do you mention "aging employees" or a "skills gap"?

Let me refresh your memory:

"When a new applicant applies for a position with a company"

Any aging employees here?

"There is a clear need for the new applicant"

None here either.

I could go on, but there's no use.

Now to your questions:

• "Why do HR people not see employment as a project?
• Why do HR persons take so long in making a decision to employ when a dead line is applicable to the client and the applicant?
• Why are HR not held accountable to meet deadlines? This is in meeting not only the employers dead line but also meeting the applicants deadline, as both are equally the agents clients at this time.
• Why are HR not accountable for costs? Each project has a budget to meet, (the applicant has an assumed budget, the client has a budget and if an agency is involved, they too have a budget.
• Why do HR not see the applicant as a 'priority' and a major part of of a project? After all, the applicant is on the critical path, the applicant has an effect on the overall project."

Nothing about your second set of conditions anywhere to be found.

It all sounds like sour grapes.

You can change the conditions all you want to save face, cause I'm done here.

Last paragraph first sentence. Read it, as it is a clear as day, in English, and categorically stated. When one completes a reading, one needs to read all, before making half arsed comments and statements.

I hope you managed to read this OK. It is in English or do you prefer another language? Totseins Lyn. Sala gahsli Lyn. Humba gashli Madoda Lyn. Hej Lyn, Goodbye Lyn.

Ok,

I'll give you skills gap.

Are we supposed to assume that aging employees are implied from this?

It still sounds like sour grapes.

Never mind.

You're right and I'm wrong.

<unsubscribe>

As far as hiring new applicants, HR typically shifts through the garbage to find a few likely candidates, that they set up for interviews.

Otherwise, they pretty much are there to cover the employer's butt from government harassment...hiring quotas for minorities, compliance with any new meanings of sexual harassment, that the government invents, and so on.

http://www.webpronews.com/the-historical-background-of-human-resource-management-2006-09

Notice how many times they refer to new "legislation", or union "collective" issues.

What a bizarre approach - treating people as spare parts!

Certainly not a new approach though.

You seem to be applying all of your attention to the process of hiring and none to the people being hired.

He's assuming that there is supposed to be some kind of mutual love and respect, between the parties, before a deal is signed.

There is not. It sucks for everyone involved.

Edit:

It doesn't suck for the people in HR, because they have been convinced by their liberal arts professors, that no stable relationship can exist, without them in the middle of it.

I'll cut to the chase...

The ship has sunk, and the lifeboat only holds 6 people. 7 people are trying to get on.

6 of the 7 people are engineers, of different colors, genders, ages, and sexual orientations...1 person works in HR.

Guess who dies?

IQ-

My direct HR experiences have been with relatively small plants, up to 300 employees. In reading your OP my viewpoint is that the "PM on multimillion $ HV Elec projects" doesn't know much about humans and the basics of evaluating potential employees as an asset. This embraces too much gobble-de-gook in the dissertation to the point where it has little or no relevancy to HR. Any attempts to program a computer (which this seems to be aimed at) to do the hard and tedious work of HR is wasteful and dangerous to the company.

In engineering and production there are 3 basic elements that are necessary and all have to be present to make an organization work and be profitable:

Assets: buildings, machinery, vehicles, etc.

Materials: raw and finished products. In an engineering environment this is the orders coming in, product/process being developed and the finished products/processes.

Personnel: The human beings that run and make the whole organization run.

Of the three the hardest to obtain, maintain, and to replace is the people. They are human beings just like all of us. Try to finding the "mean" or "average" and forgetting the individual is a quick step to oblivion.

As for a skills shortage and aging employees, this difficult to follow dissertation, as written, solves no problems but creates even more. These comments are from a former part-time HR professional and engineer and plant manager and district manager and purchasing agent and environmental specialist and safety professional and many other titles. These are all part of the last line of the job description "And all other elements of a profitable and safe profit center(s)".

Good Luck, Old Salt

Thanks for the input, however, I do believe that the entire point has been missed. There are no assumptions, no hidden meanings, no print between the lines, no computer programmes. No airey fairy convoluted theories. Simply an opening statement, background to the questions, 5 simple questions and a justification/conclusion.

The 5 bullet pointed questions are seeking answers without complications and assumptions. The exercise is a comparison in decision making, the time it takes, the priority given to making decisions when it is based on people! As both the employee and employer have deadlines, budgets, risks, as one would find in any project set up, initiation, completion and end product/result.

It is also a very good exercise in thinking outside the box and understanding the question. Only 5 of them with no ambiguity. Can the 5 questions be answered without adding any connotations to them?

Ok I give it my best shot"

Question one starts with an assumption saying that HR personal does not see this as a project.

Well, I think it might be your perception but in reality there is two truths here:

1. Nobody that is going to be hired wants to be seen as a project item

2. HR might indeed think of the personal as project and your assumption is wrong!

Now talking about your hardship that you seem to have. If HR would see this as a project they can be held acccountable for failures to deliver. Right! So they are accountable the same way you are accountable for any project not delivered correctly and in time. And are they not accountable for what they do? I have seen HR managers fly out the door due to accountabilty! Is it this what you want?

Or is there something in between. Lets say you are right and there is a shortage of skilled personal in the market. How do you expect HR to deliver? you can not buy a Boing 934 before it is being build or even a concept. If a major railway projects needs an upgrade for the trains the new ones need years to be delivered.

If you are not the one affected from the applicants side but as you state the one on the receiving end: why dont you talk about your concerns to HR? Are they not open for discussion? Instead of making assumptions about what they do or dont do, instead of imposing your project managment skills onto HR questions (BTW I agree with most of what you are saying there) why dont you talk to them?

Understanding their process of decison making will help you in dealing with them.

What did the HR manager say when you aproached him with your concerns about the dead lines in your project and how hiring does affect the bottom line?

I think I answered all question besides the cost question. But simply the way I see it: HR is very cost conscious as can be seen by pay cuts when its gets down the hill.

Oh one more thing: HR is never there when you need them! But we Engineers are!

No hardship, just a simple question from a different perspective, but yet, as engineers we seem to seek out 'assumption' and hidden agendas, and script between the lines. Where none exist.

Now from an engineers view point, Point No 1 is totally agreed with, but from a dedicated HR persons perspective, now this will be of interest!

On skills shortages world wide: fact I offer here for you to possibly follow up with and discover: Transmission and Dist. line builders, cable jointer's, plumbers, nurses, doctors, marine craft builders, etc., are all in short supply world wide. (The listings are surprising). Look on any countries 'skills in demand' list. Try Australia, USA, Canada, UK for the listings.

But, I liked your shot.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2013/03/07/americas-skilled-trades-dilemma-shortages-loom-as-most-in-demand-group-of-workers-ages/

IQ-

I would like to share some things almost all people know or believe about HR and the honest HR personnel will readily admit:

Most people don't trust HR personnel.

Those that do trust them are always on the look out for something that might make them not trust HR.

Many people believe the smile on a HR person's face is an indication that they are not telling all the truth.

Many HR personnel believe they are above the rest of the group because they think they are more eloquent speakers.

Many people believe HR people are paid liars.

Many HR personnel admit to stretching the truth for the benefit of the company but not for the employee.

The more realistic and human HR personnel admit to being paid liars.

How do you tell if an HR person is lying? They have a smile on their face.

A very good exercise in thinking is to try and figure out if an HR person is worth what they are being paid.

Fine print: _{these statements do not hold true for all HR personnel. Although they are probably the minority of HR personnel, there are also many fine ones out there. Unfortunately the bad ones make all the trouble.}

Good Luck, Old Salt

How do you tell if an HR person is lying?

Their lips are moving.

A long, long, time ago the function was called Personnel not Human Resources, and people were hired not resources. I worked for a very large company that went though the change from Personnel to HR, and the hiring process was defined by HR, which required the hiring manager to state the skills needed, time frame, and all the other details that would allow HR to go forth and find qualified individuals. It was NOT HR's responsibility to make the hiring decision, but the hiring managers. HR was only there to define and monitor the process of hiring...and not many were engineers that would think of their work in the same manner as an engineer might, as a project.

Just my thoughts...

Now we are getting somewhere. Human RESOURCES!

In projects, equipment, materials, capital and people, (contractors=humans), are in fact 'resources'. So where do we draw the line between humans and materials in any project?

Are we in fact mislead by the word "resources' when it comes to humans? We make an assumption?

I never viewed my personnel as just "resources" because each one was different and had different skill sets. I had one boss that thought you could just move "programmers" around like a machine...they program one thing they can program another right? WRONG! They are people, they have feelings, they each have different skills and abilities, they have families, they have a LIFE! Not so with innate resources that really don't care where they work or how they are used. You don't HIRE resources you BUY them.

Personnel, resources, people, names, titles or numbers........ some are sensitive to the labels.

What ever you want to call the employees, I always felt if you do not know what you have as "Personnel, resources, people, names, titles or numbers"............ as to the quality or skills-set, then your not much of a manager.

And its up to the manager to utilize the skill-sets. which benefits the company and the employee's life (Professionally and personally).

I am not an HR person, but I spoke quite candidly with several HR people during a job hunting seminar recently. The problem with your "hiring project" perspective is that most HR people are not project-oriented or technically minded so they do not think like you do. I'm not saying that your logic is wrong - I'm just saying that most HR people do not think like that.

Many times HR does not make the final hiring decision, nor set the timetable. They submit a list of (whom they feel are) suitable candidates to management and then wait for a decision. Other management decisions can also impact the timetable, including cancelling the perceived need if projects change or contracts are not signed.

These HR people admitted that most companies do not hold HR accountable or audit their effectiveness. It is easy for HR to blame poor choices on candidates or hiring managers or the available talent pool, and of course managers rarely hear about filtered candidates. One HR person admitted that many upper managers might be appalled if they knew how HR really operated.

HR does not evaluate candidates as parts of a project because they usually do not understand or even see individual projects. They evaluate candidates based upon a list of criteria submitted by the hiring manager (and rarely analyze or question that) as well as their perceptions of what kind of person they think should fit into the company culture. They do not assume that a candidate is a project priority unless a hiring manager says so; really that is the responsibility of the hiring manager.

If the job is posted globally then nobody in HR relishes dealing with the mountain of replies it generates. So the lowest guy on the totem pole is usually assigned to do the first candidate filtering. He is also likely to have the least experience and least understanding of the company's culture and industry, so his decisions can be suspect. But rarely does anybody come behind him and check for missed viable candidates, so valuable candidates get tossed.

I feel your pain about hiring via HR, and have found that that is often the hardest way to gain employment. But fighting HR is as effective as fighting City Hall. You're better off approaching the actual hiring manager instead.

"...the lowest guy on the totem pole is usually assigned to do the first candidate filtering. He is also likely to have the least experience and least understanding of the company's culture and industry, so his decisions can be suspect. But rarely does anybody come behind him and check..."

Closing the loop, that is, checking that an action has been effective is a hallmark of good engineering. Perhaps hiring managers should be allowed to sample some of the applications which HR has rejected?

You make other good points, too. Perhaps hiring managers need to work on communicating their requirements?