Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I work for Booz Allen Hamilton which does financial consutlng and lots of technical stuff too. Our recruiters are ex technical managers who also know how to screen for the soft skills too.
I work for Booz Allen Hamilton which does financial consutlng and lots of technical stuff too. Our recruiters are ex technical managers who also know how to screen for the soft skills too.
You're in HR/recruiter land and you over played your hand. FYI I work in Cambridge at a major biotech. I know right where you are following a quick google. I could ask you what this technical stuff is all about, but of course you really wouldn't know. Not that it matters, but the whole MYTH about techies falling short with social skills is silly and always perpetuated by people who are not in the fold.
As I'm sure the OP will attest, we actually get a kick out of you guys post meetings. Well, MS would probably have harsher words than I when it comes to recruiters.
I'm surprised HR is making the hiring decisions. That's pretty stupid.
In theory that is true. In practice the vast majority do not learn the technical stuff.
My company is run by scientists. A majority of tech companies have techies at the helm. That only makes sense. The soft skills you speak of may be unattainable to those with severely low IQs or mental/emotional defect. Generally, ime, scientists communicate quite well (the job requires a ton of communication, public speaking, collaboration, etc).
I don't think they are. HR tends to be the easiest scapegoat for almost any ill when it comes to employment.
HR may screen candidates-- usually they screen based on what the hiring manager has dictated. Kinda of like-- I had a screening not too long ago and the hiring manager had asked for XYZ-- I had XYA-- the HR person felt that the Z was comparable to the A and went ahead and forwarded me along anyhow. The hiring manager really liked me after speaking to me. So there you go.
The vast majority of the time HR pre-screens the resumes based on the hiring manager's direction, forward the ones with the most applicable experience to the hiring manager-- who THEN decides who he wants to interview. HR works to set up the interviews, contact the applicants who will not be pursued (if this is appropriate-- at my past two companies HR would let all internal job bidders know if they were not selected for an interview). Offers are NOT made by the hiring managers-- but rather HR (in the vast majority of the situations) and the hiring manager alerts HR to the person that they want to hire. HR then creates the offer based on several factors, etc.
However, if something goes amiss or if someone is not chosen for a job or even invited for an interview or nor made an offer it ends up being "HR's" fault. It is a convenient way to put a face on people's disappointments.
You're in HR/recruiter land and you over played your hand. FYI I work in Cambridge at a major biotech. I know right where you are following a quick google. I could ask you what this technical stuff is all about, but of course you really wouldn't know. Not that it matters, but the whole MYTH about techies falling short with social skills is silly and always perpetuated by people who are not in the fold.
As I'm sure the OP will attest, we actually get a kick out of you guys post meetings. Well, MS would probably have harsher words than I when it comes to recruiters.
To be fair and to play devil's advocate---
When I worked as a recruiter over a decade ago at this point-- many of the technical recruiters WERE former programmers, engineers, etc. In the biotech area-- they hired former scientists. I worked in telecom-- and I did not have telecom experience BUT I had strong technical aptitude-- not to mention I knew quite a bit about networking and hardware-- I built my own computers, ran my own cable at home and family's homes and set up and configured servers, networks before it was more user friendly. To understand what my hires were doing I spent a week working in a switch with a client so I could see hands on what they were doing, the environment, etc. My manager had worked in telecom for years provisioning equipment and having been in a NOC before-- so I got a lot of experience from her. I may not have been a switch tech or a field engineer but I did learn enough so I could have a decent conversation with folks and pick up on what their real experience was-- PLUS when you work in a niche field you understand the companies where you are allowed to really gain valuable experience versus the companies where you would be silo'ed doing one task endlessly all the time. Same applies even in my own current industry.
When I worked at a healthcare system in employment-- the nurse recruiting house were ALL former nurses. Other positions such as allied health-- had various backgrounds but a good chunk were folks experienced on the front end of patient care. My company places recruiters and staffing folks in appropriate pools where folks have had experience-- the technology recruiters continue to focus on technology whereas the brokerage or investment side many of them had their series licenses under they belt in previous positions.
Point being is that HR ends up being a convenient scapegoat. Some places may just throw in Nancy who has no idea of anything outside of HR-- but my experience (and I have interviewed A LOT of companies in the past year for my product management position) you would be surprised at the backgrounds of folks working in the recruitment area of the house for an internal company. Usually when those HR folks lack the experience in question of how to find and screen for certain people-- they end up going outside for a recruitment agency who KNOWS how to find placements in that niche.
I don't think they are. HR tends to be the easiest scapegoat for almost any ill when it comes to employment.
You don't think they are what?
Quote:
HR may screen candidates-- usually they screen based on what the hiring manager has dictated. Kinda of like-- I had a screening not too long ago and the hiring manager had asked for XYZ-- I had XYA-- the HR person felt that the Z was comparable to the A and went ahead and forwarded me along anyhow. The hiring manager really liked me after speaking to me. So there you go.
What?
Quote:
The vast majority of the time HR pre-screens the resumes based on the hiring manager's direction, forward the ones with the most applicable experience to the hiring manager-- who THEN decides who he wants to interview. HR works to set up the interviews, contact the applicants who will not be pursued (if this is appropriate-- at my past two companies HR would let all internal job bidders know if they were not selected for an interview). Offers are NOT made by the hiring managers-- but rather HR (in the vast majority of the situations) and the hiring manager alerts HR to the person that they want to hire. HR then creates the offer based on several factors, etc.
However, if something goes amiss or if someone is not chosen for a job or even invited for an interview or nor made an offer it ends up being "HR's" fault. It is a convenient way to put a face on people's disappointments.
I'm not really following much of what you're saying. I know full well that HR screens based on the wants of the hiring manager or department. In the end, that's what they are- screeners, as far as the hiring process goes. They are not making hiring decisions nor are they psych gurus. Nor does what you're saying have anything to do with whether scientists indeed hold these prized soft skills or not. I'll reiterate that the myth is perpetuated by those with inferiority complexes.
When I worked as a recruiter over a decade ago at this point-- many of the technical recruiters WERE former programmers, engineers, etc. In the biotech area-- they hired former scientists.
Sorry, I simply have a hard time buying this. The only reason a scientist or programmer would fall into recruiting is out of desperation. I could see that happening in this economy, but not as a norm.
Quote:
Point being is that HR ends up being a convenient scapegoat. Some places may just throw in Nancy who has no idea of anything outside of HR-- but my experience (and I have interviewed A LOT of companies in the past year for my product management position) you would be surprised at the backgrounds of folks working in the recruitment area of the house for an internal company. Usually when those HR folks lack the experience in question of how to find and screen for certain people-- they end up going outside for a recruitment agency who KNOWS how to find placements in that niche.
I'm not sure what all this has to do with the point I was making.
Sorry, I simply have a hard time buying this. The only reason a scientist or programmer would fall into recruiting is out of desperation. I could see that happening in this economy, but not as a norm.
I'm not sure what all this has to do with the point I was making.
Stranger things happen.
I have a friend who gave up a career in science to focus on something completely alien to science (she held an MS in Microbiology). Not everyone chooses a career path and decides they want to do it forever. I know many software engineers who are in my age group who left their primary career. I know a few who are sales engineers, one leads an HRIS department, a few are in Sr management (and not in just technical departments), and I have a couple in my product management department who work as product managers. A few years ago our EVP in HR was a former software engineer earlier in his career and then went into the management side after an MBA from Sloan.
I am not any different really. I am trained as an accountant. I loathe accounting. I did internal auditing for 2 years and I couldn't WAIT to get out of it. The idea of doing taxes is just repugnant to me as a living. I kept the books for a friend's business and I still disliked it.
In terms of why recruiting, I can say the folks I knew a decade ago-- they made more in recruiting than they did in their primary, original careers. OR- it provided a better work life balance (as was the case of my former manager).
I'm not really following much of what you're saying. I know full well that HR screens based on the wants of the hiring manager or department. In the end, that's what they are- screeners, as far as the hiring process goes. They are not making hiring decisions nor are they psych gurus. Nor does what you're saying have anything to do with whether scientists indeed hold these prized soft skills or not. I'll reiterate that the myth is perpetuated by those with inferiority complexes.
Well you mashed two of my responses to your posts into one.
To your "what" I was replying that HR folks are not making the hiring decisions.
I never broached the soft skills portion of your post. I don't think HR screens for that at all really-- at least in my experience. My "screening" calls with HR have been more about-- expound on this part of your resume, etc. It was more so that they had a bigger picture to tell to the hiring manager that was not as evident on your resume. My whole statement revolved around most people assume HR is some busy body who has no other skill set besides "HR" when in reality in my past experience as well as my current experience interviewing HR representatives for market research-- this is a fallacy. Many folks in recruitment whether internal or external may have specific industry knowledge.
To your "what" I was replying that HR folks are not making the hiring decisions.
Based on the OP clearly that's the case for some co's. I'm saying that it's asinine. That would never happen at my co, thank god.
Quote:
I never broached the soft skills portion of your post. I don't think HR screens for that at all really-- at least in my experience. My "screening" calls with HR have been more about-- expound on this part of your resume, etc. It was more so that they had a bigger picture to tell to the hiring manager that was not as evident on your resume. My whole statement revolved around most people assume HR is some busy body who has no other skill set besides "HR" when in reality in my past experience as well as my current experience interviewing HR representatives for market research-- this is a fallacy. Many folks in recruitment whether internal or external may have specific industry knowledge.
That has not been my experience. Every single recruiter or HR person knew nothing but buzz words. That's why I asked for workaholics background. There's a reason he didn't answer to it and it's not because he has a science degree or has worked as a programmer, scientist, etc. As far as how HR is perceived, it's true that HR is perceived poorly. There are articles written about it!
Right or wrong many view HR as worthless.
Quote:
So why do we hate HR? Some of the reasons offered by Fast Company are:
1. HR people aren't the sharpest tacks in the box
2. HR pursues efficiency in lieu of value
3. HR, for all its claims, isn't working for you . It's a handmaiden of management.
I would add one more: most HR people, with few exceptions, are intensely political but totally clueless when it comes to strategy.
I have a friend who gave up a career in science to focus on something completely alien to science (she held an MS in Microbiology). Not everyone chooses a career path and decides they want to do it forever. I know many software engineers who are in my age group who left their primary career. I know a few who are sales engineers, one leads an HRIS department, a few are in Sr management (and not in just technical departments), and I have a couple in my product management department who work as product managers. A few years ago our EVP in HR was a former software engineer earlier in his career and then went into the management side after an MBA from Sloan.
I am not any different really. I am trained as an accountant. I loathe accounting. I did internal auditing for 2 years and I couldn't WAIT to get out of it. The idea of doing taxes is just repugnant to me as a living. I kept the books for a friend's business and I still disliked it.
In terms of why recruiting, I can say the folks I knew a decade ago-- they made more in recruiting than they did in their primary, original careers. OR- it provided a better work life balance (as was the case of my former manager).
Nobody dreams of recruiting. People don't strive to get there, they end up there, wouldn't you say? Heck, I would give it a try if all else failed. Clearly, I'd be a step above the average tech recruiter who doesn't have a tech background. Again, tho, it would be a sad day for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
