Recently I got a call from a recruiter looking for some networking help on a job. So far, so good. The requirements came over indicating that the candidate needed to have a credential that I don’t have. Their successful candidate needed to have come up through an “HR academy organization – GE, Pepsico, IBM”
That seems really short sighted to me (maybe because I didn’t punch that ticket). They maybe great HR companies but they are not the only ones. These companies can generate their own share of substandard people. Having done HR there is no guarantee of success.
More fundamentally, it struck me that the credential was being used in lieu of real evaluation and decision. To go farther into the rhelm of “I have no idea what I am talking about… ” I wonder if their insistence on that credential betrays an internal HR focus at the expense of a broader range of business skills.
I know some really outstanding “graduates” of the academy. None of them apply what they learned there thoughtlessly. The processes and strategies are all part of the context of their thinking, not the inherent object of their action. The worst of the graduates do their jobs just like they did back at “ACME” or wherever. They do it the same way because it is the “ACME way”.
What do you think? Is it a legitimate strategy to look for a Head of HR for a division based on the credential of being an HR Academy grad?
5 Comments, Comment or Ping
To be blunt, I wouldn’t consider have a GE credential from the rank-and-yank days as being valuable at all. I would be very afraid of someone who came from a shop that thought that was an acceptable process. Gimme thinking people any day, no matter where they came from.
May 26th, 2010
I am not a fan of arbitrary job requirements.
In this (or any) job market, I can see using certain factors as a filter… perhaps to further consider (or rule out) candidates. If there is evidence that candidates with a certain credential or a certain experience are more likely to be successful in the hiring organization, then it’s practical to weigh that when considering whether to invest the time in meeting with the applicant.
Also, I think some job descriptions are tailored to candidates that the hiring managers already knows they want to hire.
I think certain requirements are necessary (candidates need to pass the bar to practice law) and other desired experience should be characterized as exactly that.
May 27th, 2010
Thanks Sarah – very thoughtful and insightful response. (Being just a hater is still more fun though – but you are right.)
Thanks Frank.
May 27th, 2010
When I’m writing job descriptions, I generally take two very rudimentary approaches: 1. what are we selling? and 2. what do we need to be responsible for? The first approach is job attractiveness and how it will entice candidates to take notice and apply for the position. The second approach is essentially a basis for what do we actually need in the description that will meet the needs of the business and avoid any legal issues. Basic stuff. The problem I have with the HR academy “requirement” is that I actually question if you can require anyone to truly have that skill or experience at all. Anyone could argue that it may actually discriminate against other equally qualified candidates. If this is something that they’re really looking for, then they should list it as a preferred skill/exp and have their recruiter source for candidates from those markets. Furthermore, I have to agree with Sarah that it’s more likely that the job was tailored to someone’s taste, which is really unfortunate. I’ve met dozens of people with advanced degrees and years of experience from this company and that, but it still amazes me how un-willing some of them are to change with the work environment and the industry. There’s so much more that goes into hiring the right leader and a lot of that has to getting those people in the door and testing the chemistry.
June 19th, 2010
Well done Mathew – thanks for the comment.
June 19th, 2010
Reply to “HR Academy”