4 ms·
having been on both sides of the hiring equation, my sense is that the current system is broken by design. For myself, I've read positions at a company that ar
by lmg643 13y ago
having been on both sides of the hiring equation, my sense is that the current system is broken by design.
For myself, I've read positions at a company that are a perfect fit, only to see things like (paraphrasing) "5-10 years of prior experience at a digital media company required". To get that, there are a small handful of companies one could have ever worked for. why wouldn't the hiring manager just call the 5 people you know who are a fit? right - because HR says we have to post the job.
From the hiring side - it is important to understanding managerial objectives in hiring, which frequently diverge from company interests beyond a certain size and maturity. Job security and minimizing headaches come to the forefront. The most understandable is training - even a smart pup needs time to learn. the remaining motives are questionable, and hard to surface.
No doubt there's room for a company like HireArt, but when i read the description of what the company expects to solve, my first thought is that rather than fix a broken-by-design hiring market, it will mostly relieve the guilt of HR employees who know hiring is intentionally broken.
- jonnathanson 13y agoI don't know if hiring is "intentionally" broken, so much as it's a casualty of bureaucracy. Very few companies invest strategically in HR, and for the most part, they treat the hiring process on an ad hoc basis. It's a nonissue until it becomes an issue, at which point, it's a fire drill that nobody has really thought through. The hiring manager has other things on her plate, and the HR manager has a few dozen other positions to fill out. And then there are the legal requirements, the risk mitigation, the forms and procedures, the pay bands, and so forth. Nobody's set out to create a broken system; the breakage in the system is the result of a couple dozen microscopic fractures that have built up along the way. What seems intentionally broken is the general approach to human capital. The workforce is massively, ridiculously undervalued. Most companies -- especially the bigger ones -- would rather churn and burn through their employees, replacing them as they leave, than invest seriously in training, retaining, and developing a strong and long-term workforce. The inefficiencies resulting from this attitude are hidden, but massive. But the short-term ROI is, sadly, quite positive. So nobody's got any incentive to change the approach.
- jared314 13y agoIsn't that the reason most unions formed in the first place? I wonder how many generations it will take to fix the current approach to human capital. The current pessimism around employee training and development will rub off on the next generation, like a downward spiral, but without some of the reasoning or perspective.
- geogra4 13y agoWe had a fix. Unions. They were dismantled by Nixon, Reagan, et. al. from 1968 to the present because the professional classes believed that they were insulated from the problems of the working class. They were wrong, and we are paying the price, the profits going directly to the owners of capital.
- obstacle1 13y agoSo basically, Marx was right.
- geogra4 13y agoMore relevant than ever in today's economy.