[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is a bit unfair to blame HR. The problem starts with the resumes, and how they are doctored and the inconsistencies in these resumes. And then if you factor in how HR harvests these doctored stack of resume it is a bit challenging and naturally they come across as being inefficient.
Naturally they have a tough job. I don't enjoy poring over resumes one bit, and I sympathize with them for making a career out of it. However, I believe there has to be a better algorithm for spotting the right resume than time consuming counts of years of experience and checking for inconsistencies.
For example, if I am looking to fill an engineering position, a membership in a TeX user group or model aircraft building as a hobby tells me more about the person than meaningless MCSE and RHCE certifications.
The reason this awful HR practice persists is because it's very quantifiable. It makes them look busy, after all who can fault the hardworking HR person (or head hunting agency) who forwards a 100 resumes a day, even if none of them meet the bar. It's like shooting scatter shot - you are bound to eventually hit something. Besides the hiring manager looks really bad if he rejects too many candidates. I mean, hey what have you done lately? All you've done is rejected "qualified" candidates, all of whom had "professional" certifications.
The onus then is on the hiring manager to schedule interviews with everyone in the organization including the janitor. This way there is ample room for blame sharing and collective stupidity.
Kind of like the packaged tour operator who'll take you to every item on the tourist's handbook at an unbelievable rate.
There are always exceptions, but this in my view is very close to the norm. Cheeni
