At 05:05 PM 7/27/2012, Russell Coker wrote:
The general HR processes fail to even assess mostly average people. It seems that small companies are better in this regard because they are more focussed on results. One of my clients seems to have specialised in hiring people who wouldn't fit the corporate HR model and it's worked well for them for 20 years. The thing is that they just want to get the job done, convince the owner that you can do the job and you'll get hired, no credentials needed.
I agree totally about small companies. The last place I worked for was one of those companies where being able to do the job was the important thing. The directors were selective about getting the right people for the job they had in mind, and what was on paper, or how well one could "play the interview game" didn't count for much with them, the real criteria was whether they felt the person could perform the role they had a vacancy for, and how well they could do it.
If the big corporations made minor adjustments to try and run efficiently then the payoffs would be huge. For example there have been a few occasions when I've noticed ways that a company could save some millions of dollars in software or hardware, every time I've mentioned that I've received absolutely no interest from management, they had budgetted to spend a lot of money and there's no need to decrease it.
If a company is going to needlessly spend millions on extra hardware or software then needlessly spending hundreds of thousands on extra staff because hiring one person who could do the job properly is too hard isn't going to be a big deal.
Then we have a problem with the economic system rewarding inefficiency and mediocrity, rather than excellence. Sadle, I don't have any answers for that particular problem. People are too busy feathering their nest and building empires than getting the job done properly. :/ 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com