Having organized and participated in not a few recruitment exercises during my long stint as a Human Resources professional, I realised that I, like many other recruiters the world over, often set requirements, intentionally or otherwise, that swing hopeful job seekers to very fuzzy sides of the job hunting spectrum.
Three primary requirements are:
Requirement No. 1: YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
There are many queries on this.
- How is experience logically evaluated?
- What are the criteria for a suitable experience?
- How do years of experience translate to actual value?
- How does longevity determine quality and proficiency?
In Nigeria, for example, most organisations, and this will account for over 95%, consider work experience as any form of engagement, acquired after the one-year National Service. This also determines the quality of pay and the status that is accorded. So,
- should it count if, in the course of one’s undergraduate study, the candidate had acquired and engaged the particular knowledge, skill or ability and has become adept at it such that s/he is now being considered for employment based on that skill?
- should it count if, the candidate had engaged in direct or indirect practice such that appreciable skill has been acquired cumulatively over some time?
- should it count also if, the candidate has demonstrated skillfulness in related aspects or otherwise and is enthusiastic about taking on the new role in the hope that s/he will be equipped adequately to take on the new challenge?
Presumably, the people with the “years of experience” are actively engaged somewhere, where a “platform” for career improvement, growth and success is offered to them. Investing in today’s newbies in anticipation of tomorrow’s experienced highflyers is a smart way to secure a succession plan.
Requirement No. 2: PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE
Sometimes, we specify that all the certifications and educational/professional acquisitions of a candidate would not be relevant to determine what is expected for an allegedly senior job role nor influence admirable pay. Other times, we demand specific and generic job knowledge inclusive of the application of extensive work tools as a requirement to be considered for the job role, with mouth-dripping pay. Even more, we request for everything possible, yet specify that the organisation will only pay what it can afford. What would be the fate of the candidate then – to improve or not to improve self? As industries differ, so do areas of specialisation differ.
If each candidate has to self-evaluate by these criteria, how much self-development is s/he expected to or not to acquire? Then for value acquired, how does it translate to return on investment also for the candidate who constantly burrows trenches in her/his finances in faith that the skill acquired will count for something in the anticipated job interview? Are we, recruiters, willing to pay for the quality and wealth of talent we often seek? Where there is generalist knowledge to considerable degrees and the potential to acquire additional knowledge/skill and apply the same dexterously, what can we offer?
In today’s rapidly evolving business world, what should job orientation, training/retraining, coaching, career planning, engagement, etc. count for?
Requirement No. 3: THE “FIT”
I recently read an article where it was stated that the recruiting decision is mostly reached based on 3 criteria – professional/skill astuteness, personality fit and social fit. More often, in seeking the “fit” for a job role, potential candidates are severely chiselled to suit different “fit requirements” which could sometimes result in irreparable distortions.
How about engaging potential high flyers possessing zeal and appreciable knowledge and then showing them “The Way”? They may not even be high flyers. Zeal, willingness and teachability could be sufficient to invest in. The “one size fits all” approach is demeaning of individual differences and obscures the recruiter’s perspective from really seeing and evaluating people beyond skill and personality, thereby distorting candidates.
Let’s talk about “The Door”.
Doors can be tailor-made (or carpenter-made, to avoid any debate on controversial nomenclature. Each door has a specific key engine with a matching key. This key is a perfect fit only because both the key engine and the key were made in sync – i.e. the engine was made for the key and the key was made for the engine, (a predestined love relationship) – with “the door” in focus.
Many times, a well-meaning doorman tries to use an estranged key for a door. Other times, a new and beautifully crafted key with its matching engine is fixed on an old wooden and rusty door, where even the simple process of changing the locks could destroy the door. Even worse is replacing the old rusty door on a cracking building structure with a brand-new door. While perspectives may differ, sometimes the solution may not be to acquire a new key; the solution could just be to reinforce the cracking structure.
The recruitment decision is NOT one to make haphazardly as a negative outcome can be far more damaging for the individual and the organisation. Nevertheless, successful recruitment cannot be determined 100% even with the best combination of recruitment tools – psychometric tests, personality profiling, traditional interviewing, competency-based interviewing, scenario-based interviewing, gut-feeling interviewing, and any other futuristic technique. Sometimes, one method wins over the other for one organisation and is catastrophic for another. Other times. a blend of different methods could serve the great good. Overall, the ability to persistently fail forward, with a profound understanding and respect for human dynamics, will make a whole world of difference.
Ultimately, recruitment is about finding potential and fostering growth, not just ticking boxes on experience and skill. It is also important to recognise it as a worthwhile investment and as with all investments, the yields are long-term. The risk in investing in people is always worth the reward.
Cheers,
StephREDD