Here is scratch
pad survey on how hiring panned out for 25 companies in the last two years. If
I make a strong suggestion that the results may be taken with an extra large
pinch of salt, the reason is simple. The sample size is rather small, just 25
companies, which took about 67 employees on board.
But, the survey
has some merits to back it up.
I know the
respondents personally: 21 HR managers and 2 decision making C-Level officers
shared their experiences informally over a period of last two months.
It’s not a structured interview, meaning the
people didn’t have to make cautious or considered replies. Only last week, I
jotted down some notes and checked with these friends who agreed with the
record. But, for obvious reasons, they prefer to be anonymous and so they shall
be.
To summarize the
events, the 25 companies planned to hire for 95 positions but could fill only
67 positions.
On an average,
972 applications were received for each job. Believe it or not, one job post
didn’t elicit, even one single application! On the max side, a Technical Sales
Engineer job attracted a whopping 5,300 hopefuls. How this happened has an
interesting story, which will come a bit later.
As many as
around 20 selected candidates didn't care to join. The companies had to send
out repeat call letters and settle for candidates whom they had marked as
‘second’ or ‘third’ best.
The final
tabulation shows these results.
First annual Performance Appraisal Summary
|
No. of Employees
|
By Percentage
|
Achievers who have exceeded expectations
|
6
|
9
|
Good: these employees are meeting the objectives
|
14
|
21
|
Average: These people need constant persuasion, supervision
|
14
|
21
|
Unsatisfactory: Low productivity, inter-personal problems, poor
attendance
|
33
|
49
|
Total
|
67
|
|
Some of the
reasons given are eye-openers.
How the achievers were hired:
The three companies
which report having hired achievers and ‘good’ followed a meticulous process.
They prepared a detailed profile of the person who would fit the job role best.
In addition to anticipated education, experience and certification
qualifications, the HR and the departmental heads wrote a brief note on
expected behavioral and attitudinal attributes. The profile was so complete
that it could actually mirror the possible candidate. The decision maker vetted
the profile and was involved at each important stage of hiring. A meticulous
schedule was prepared and adhered to closely. The companies benchmarked competition
and were ready with the right salary structure which was announced upfront.
The planning and
execution were a model of project management, if it could be put like that.
How the ‘Unsatisfactory’ people crept
in:
The story about
the below par employee is riddled with the blame game.
‘We were never
given sufficient time and brief’ says one HR manager. A very cryptic Email from
the boss simply said ‘Hire two Technical Sales Engineers.” The HOD was equally
short – “you know what we do – get two chaps.” You can easily imagine how badly
the job post was drafted and wouldn't be shocked to hear that 5,300
applications poured in. And, naturally most of the applicants had none of even
the basic knowledge. The interview was a hurried mish-mash affair, with as many
as 250 people literally ‘walking through.”
In another case,
the hiring process was prolonged over some 8 rounds spread over three months. ‘All
the good candidates vanished and we simply rushed through at the end picking up
chaps who had not found a job in three months.’ the HR lamented.
I am convinced
that hiring should be handled like a project and must have the full involvement
of the decision maker. More on that in my next post.
Meanwhile, if you
would like to have any articles/ blogs on HR, automobiles, IT Enabled services
and any other topics, you know what to do. Just shoot an Email. Vvsarma51@gmail.com .