| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Hey HR People - Stay Classy! |
Topic: Hey HR People - Stay Classy!
| Author | Message |
| fredtryle | Posted – 5/30/2008 2:30:43 PM | show profile I had 4 interviews, followed up, was told I would be offered the job the next day. Then I was told next week. Then I was told, maybe in a couple of weeks. Then I was told, we're not sure if it will happen. Then I was told, we're not filling the position. Each time I got information, it was because I called. Don't you think it is reasonable to expect a company that was planning to offer you a job "tomorrow" to tell you when the job itself is killed? I do, and I think less of this company because they didn't. I wonder if it's policy, or if the HR person I dealt with was just negligent. Any opinons welcome! Fred |
| wineaux | Posted – 5/30/2008 2:53:58 PM | show profile Dealing with HR depts. can often be a frustrating ring-round the rosy. I went through experiences similiar to yours couple of times last fall, and it stretched on for a couple of months. One of the companies called me 4 freaking months after the interview to offer me the job, and acted annoyed when I said I found a job well over three months prior to that. Who can eat when it can take several months for them to contact you AFTER they said they wanted to hire you??? I just wish they would cut the bs and be honest about what the hiring climate is for them. That's why I freelance now. At least well over 3/4 of the people who hire me are serious enough to commit within the first few weeks of contact. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 5/30/2008 3:01:04 PM | show profile This is really common. I get calls all the time about projects, agree to terms, but then never receive the contract or have the deals simply cancelled. Often, I never get a call back. The HR person may not have been negligent. It's probable that the company was reconsidering the position, and the information she was receiving was changing. It's frustrating, but I could see from the HR person's standpoint. And sadly, this type of thing has become common operating procedure. I don't think companies care if they tick off potential employees. |
| foodlit | Posted – 5/30/2008 3:54:49 PM | show profile Fred, It sounds like you weren't dealing with the best hr person, because they should not have told you an offer would be given next day unless they were 100% certain. And given that they did tell you that, they should have been more proactive about reaching out to you. In general though, when these kinds of delays happen, it's never hr's fault, they are just the ones that deliver the message. If a job is put on hold or eliminated, that comes from the hiring manager. It is however, their responsibility to communicate to candidates. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 5/31/2008 4:03:35 PM | show profile In a polite, civilized society where people have ethics and consideration for others, your expectations are reasonable, Fred. But this is the media in 2008, an industry known for its ugliness in a time when manners and etiquette are long dead. I can't tell you how many times I've been jerked around--people dropping off the face of the earth when presented with a contract, jobs "on hold" for months on end, HR people who believe offering you one dollar more an hour when the middle ground between their offer and your request would have been closer to five dollars more an hour...Oh, I could sit here all day and wallow in my ever-growing disgust for this industry. Suffice to say, hope for the best, but expect the worst, and never, ever believe anyone about any jobs or freelance work until you have a signed piece of paper in your hand from the company attesting to its intentions. Really, it's a slimy field. |
| foodlit | Posted – 6/1/2008 9:18:59 AM | show profile Wordy, Am not sure which field you are referring to as 'slimy', but as an fyi, HR does not decide what to offer you. Whatever HR offers comes from a hiring manager. In order to 'meet you in the middle' and offer more than an extra dollar, they need that hiring manager to suggest and approve....it's not HR's dollars, it's the hiring manager and comes out of their budget. HR is just the messenger. Remember the saying about 'don't shoot the messenger?' |
| RockinRonD | Posted – 6/1/2008 10:53:02 AM | show profile | email poster Right on Wordy...I agree with everything you articulated so well. And while HR people may be the messengers, common courtesy is still an option for them. At the very least they can call the candidate and explain the delays, changes or cancellation of a job or project. How long would it take, two minutes out of their day? But common courtesy is a rare virtue these days, especially in publishing and few HR people practice it as a rule. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 6/2/2008 1:33:17 AM | show profile Pam, please see where I said: "But this is the media in 2008, an industry known for its ugliness..." Thank you. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 6/2/2008 1:39:48 AM | show profile But yes, I think a lot of HR people need a crash course in manners, FAST, because as Ron pointed out, a lot of this is common courtesy. Some HR people seem to forget that they are the face of their company to potential employees, and when a contact in HR behaves in a rude and cavalier fashion, it paints a very bad picture of the company as a whole. Am I saying ALL HR people are that way? No. But I will maintain that in my 20 years of working, that has been the case far more often than not. Frankly, I think HR as an industry is bloated. In several companies I've worked for, a lot of HR's purpose appears to be to sit around and make work for themselves with little feel-good rah-rah programs for things like "inclusion" and company-wide bake-offs. In fact, I don't even like the term "human resource." It dehumanizes people completely. I am not a "resource" to be consumed like toner in a printer cartridge. That whole industry ought to go back to the term "personnel." |
| BruisePristine | Posted – 6/2/2008 11:50:16 AM | show profile Most HR personnel don't even understand the position for which they are hiring. I would infinitely prefer to work for a company where I had the opportunity to meet with the managing editor or my immediate supervisor rather than go through HR. I can't answer the tired interview questions: "Where do you see yourself in five years? What are your goals? Why do you want to work here? What is your greatest strength? Weakness?" with a straight face. Interviewing with the boss-man is like having a conversation. Interviewing with HR is like reading off a list. And yes, I think it is HR's duty to tell you that the job was killed. I never get any information out of those people unless I call, either. This is the difference between them and you: They have secure and low-visibility jobs, and usually aren't held to deadlines. You aren't that lucky. HR should be comprised of journalists. I can think of no people better to perform screening and recruiting and information activities than those who gather and disseminate information for a living. |
| foodlit | Posted – 6/2/2008 12:10:31 PM | show profile "Most HR people don't understand the job they are recruiting for?" And you know this, how? Talk about a sweeping generalization. I could follow that up with another from the other side....about how amazing it is that people apply for jobs they want, not jobs they are qualified for. Email has been a blessing and a curse.....we used to get one out of 10 resumes that were appropriate for the jobs they applied for...now it's more like one out of 100, and you have to wade through all the clutter before you get to the one resume that is remotely qualified. The truth is that most hr people in companies are overworked and underpaid and clearly underappreciated. Which is why my year on the corporate side was a one time experience. The money is not nearly good enough for all of the aggravation. |
| fredtryle | Posted – 6/2/2008 2:40:47 PM | show profile I won't enter the HR does nothing / HR does a ton fray. I do think that basic, common-sense politeness has become a low priority at many companies, and that is foolish because it is cost-efficient to treat people well. And besides, you can't take it with you! |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 6/2/2008 4:49:29 PM | show profile That type of comment, to me, is just general frustration over HR, which most people see as an obstacle to get through. I doubt many people here know much about what the HR department does. --"Most HR people don't understand the job they are recruiting for?" And you know this, how? Talk about a sweeping generalization.-- |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 6/2/2008 5:41:55 PM | show profile I have never once gotten a job through HR, and I know for a fact that the bif four (Time, Conde NAst, Hearst, Hachette) rarely hire out of HR. (Even former editors with fancy titles don't make the final decisions on who is hired for what jobs, and often are just told to look for "someone for such and such position). HR does paperwork and handles isues with problem employees. I suggest you submit resumes and cover letters directly to the exec eds or managing eds at the places you wish to work. |
| Scottie | Posted – 6/2/2008 6:21:12 PM | show profile My impression of recruiters is also that most of them know very little about the jobs they are filling. While I hear there are good ones who know the industry, I have yet to meet them. I think this is why most recruiters look for someone doing the same job at a competing company -- because that way they don't have to judge if the candidate is qualified, someone else has -- supposedly -- done it for them. This does seem sort of a pointless way to hire though. It's almost as if you're taking your competitor's mediocre employees who aren't being promoted as opposed to getting the up and comers. A friend was recently approached to make a lateral move to a competitor. She asked why she would do it. The hiring manager said, "Way more money." Now honestly, does that make any sense at all from a talent development POV? |
| astrahook | Posted – 6/2/2008 9:05:27 PM | show profile if you were hiring someone to paint your house, would you hire a plumber who may have some kind of related painting experience or would you hire a painter? |
| Scottie | Posted – 6/2/2008 11:21:10 PM | show profile I have indeed hired non-professional painters because I saw their handiwork and recognized it was good. They were cheaper than the competition and I got them on the way up. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 6/3/2008 12:45:45 AM | show profile scotttie, were they "non professional painters" who actually paint, or were they, say, veterinary tech assistants, or seventh grade science teachers looking to pay the bills with extra cash? If you asked someone who doesn't paint professionally (buy that I do not mean someone who doesn't have a business but simply someone who doesn't paint, ever) and that person did a great job, you lucked out. I got neighbors on either side who hired a bunch of college students to do it--they'll tell you that straight up. "Drop cloth? No, we don't have one. What are they?" "Tape the edges? Dude, who can't paint in a straight line?" |
| astrahook | Posted – 6/3/2008 10:26:46 AM | show profile ok...if you ran a magazine and you needed to hire a managing editor, would you hire someone who has a strong editorial background, but no experience to the production end of things? And better yet, would you be doing this at a time when your buisness is fighting for survival and any potential snafu could cost significant $ to your already marginal bottom line? |
| foodlit | Posted – 6/3/2008 11:14:46 AM | show profile Scottie, Sorry, but you really don't have an understanding of what we do. Recruiters target candidates from competitors because that's what gets the hiring managers excited. There's different kinds of recruiting though. Generally in-house recruiters don't do the kind of recruiting that I do. Some do, but generally not to the extent. I am what is referred to as a 'headhunter'. An in-house recruiter deals more with inbound resumes and referrals, people who apply directly to the site and who are actively looking. I generate referrals through my network and one of the ways I do that is to cold call into competing companies. I am not looking for 'mediocre' players. That's not what employers are willing to pay fees for...I am targeting the rising stars. If you're a hiring manager and have the chance to hire a rising star from the competion, you generally jump at the chance. Why would that candidate consider it? Interestingly, it's rarely about money, because if it is, that candidate will likely receive and accept a counter offer. I find the people for whom the timing is right for other reasons, maybe they're ready for a promotion, but the timing isn't there yet for them, or they have a new boss that they hate or the role I have is just a better challenge or overall opportunity. And a good recruiter knows the job and company that they are recruiting for extremely well. However, there are plenty of mediocre recruiters out there, that unfortunately reflect badly on the rest of us. |
| Scottie | Posted – 6/3/2008 11:17:51 AM | show profile Actually, I worked at a magazine that once hired a designer as the managing editor and she turned out to be great. She was well-organized, smart and keen. The first two weeks were rough but after that it was smooth sailing. She was hired because we were desperate. Her predecessor, who did have manging ed. experience, had turned out to be a disaster and quit on the spot. ------------- The point I'm tryng to make is not that you should hire people who are completely unqualified, but that sometimes you need a little imagination in hiring. Like everything else in life there's a risk/reward factor. If you grab the lifer managing editor, you know what you'll get -- a lifer managing editor. If you take a risk, you many end up with the future publisher. |
| Scottie | Posted – 6/3/2008 11:20:45 AM | show profile Foodlit, what exactly did I say that led you to believe I don't understand what you do? I actually think I have a pretty good grasp of what you do. You've said here yourself many times that what you look for in a cover letter is someone who's done the same job at a competitor, have you not? |
| foodlit | Posted – 6/3/2008 12:01:29 PM | show profile Scottie, This is what gave me that impression, "My impression of recruiters is also that most of them know very little about the jobs they are filling. While I hear there are good ones who know the industry, I have yet to meet them. I think this is why most recruiters look for someone doing the same job at a competing company -- because that way they don't have to judge if the candidate is qualified, someone else has -- supposedly -- done it for them. This does seem sort of a pointless way to hire though. It's almost as if you're taking your competitor's mediocre employees who aren't being promoted as opposed to getting the up and comers." You didn't seem to understand why recruiters look for people from competitors....your impressions were incorrect, and I explained what actually happens and why. |
| BruisePristine | Posted – 6/3/2008 12:02:31 PM | show profile Foodlit, you changed my quote. That isn't what I said, it isn't what I meant, and it changes the context of my gripe. I said HIRING FOR. I recognize the difference between HR and a recruiter, believe me. I also recognized early on that changing a quote in a story changes its whole meaning. My complaint was directed specifically to human resources personnel, individuals who do not RECRUIT talent, but who instead deal with claims and benefits forms, and who screen the "herds" who apply for job postings. I was just recruited for a Web publishing job by a headhunter (a surprise at my level), and the process was very different from interviewing with HR. I have also hired before, at two separate jobs, one media and one not. I realize it is tough. My gripe is specifically about DEADBEAT HR PERSONNEL, who pass over real talent in favor of who is the tallest, who isn't black, or who is ugly enough to not threaten them. I interviewed with one such HR person for a tech support job weeks ago who, though she chose my resume, did not understand what I did for a living. This isn't the first time this has happened, either. This is insanely frustrating and wastes my time. Yes, I said journalists should perform recruiting, too, at the bottom of my rant. But surely you have some media experience since you are posting here? My complaint was not meant at you, or even at the type of job you work. |
| BruisePristine | Posted – 6/3/2008 12:02:45 PM | show profile Foodlit, you changed my quote. That isn't what I said, it isn't what I meant, and it changes the context of my gripe. I said HIRING FOR. I recognize the difference between HR and a recruiter, believe me. I also recognized early on that changing a quote in a story changes its whole meaning. My complaint was directed specifically to human resources personnel, individuals who do not RECRUIT talent, but who instead deal with claims and benefits forms, and who screen the "herds" who apply for job postings. I was just recruited for a Web publishing job by a headhunter (a surprise at my level), and the process was very different from interviewing with HR. I have also hired before, at two separate jobs, one media and one not. I realize it is tough. My gripe is specifically about DEADBEAT HR PERSONNEL, who pass over real talent in favor of who is the tallest, who went to the Ivy Leagues, or who is ugly enough to not threaten them. I interviewed with one such HR person for a tech support job weeks ago who, though she chose my resume, did not understand what I did for a living. This isn't the first time this has happened, either. This is insanely frustrating and wastes my time. Yes, I said journalists should perform recruiting, too, at the bottom of my rant. But surely you have some media experience since you are posting here? My complaint was not meant at you, or even at the type of job you work. |
