Good news has preceded the new year's celebrations. According to a global study in which over 4,500 Indian employers were interviewed by recruitment firm, Manpower, hiring is on the upswing. Indian employers were more optimistic than their peers in 41 countries, says the study. This obviously will spread a cheer in campuses and in the hearts of Indians in general. After a decline in the last quarter of 2011 which can be endorsed by anyone who has wanted to change a job, this is looking like Santa's gift.
And this gets us back to the beginning. New hires mean expansion of old set-ups or the mushrooming of new divisions/ groups. For the human resource folks it will mean a fresh look at integrating people into their company philosophies and systems; gearing up the older employees to become ready to brace the change and then watching how the whole exercise takes shape.
Will the challenges for hiring this time round be any different? There has been time in the past couple of years during the slowdown to actually re-visit and study these processes and look at where the changes are required. Were such exercises conducted or were they shelved till required the next time? The answer will define the critical difference in how the new employees are absorbed this time round. As financial markets continue to be heartlessly indifferent, stability in the work place will remain central to the process of choice-making for the new recruits. How will the corporate put its best foot forward and attract the best candidates when suddenly everyone wants them?
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Walk-in?
A recent ad caught my attention as I scanned the Job Openings pages of newspapers to see which way the employment market was swerving that day. It was a medium-sized classified ad and called for people- editors. Nothing strange so far except that it stated clearly that these were senior positions. And then it invited walk-ins in working hours on the mentioned day. I re-read it because I saw a gross mismatch. They wanted senior people and all they wanted to invest was an open day when anyone without a prior appointment could walk in.
Visualise the scenario. A person aspiring to be in the senior rungs of a company would come to them without a confirmed meeting. Then they would meet him or her without knowing any prior information or discussion. And they expect to put together a cohesive, effective team this way that would deliver the goods? And who with the right amount of desire for growth would come to such an interview?
This may be an extreme case but it leads us to a pertinent area of learning: How much do prospective employers put into the hiring process? Is it a set exercise of calling the usual search and placement agencies? Is there a clear definition of the requirement and is the communication between the hiring department and HR clear and unambiguous? My HR friends say that the process is quite often set. The usual agencies are called up. Many rue that the job profile and the profile of the person to be hired is often hazy. This gets even hazier if there is a re-vamp of roles or a new role is being created. Oftentimes, not enough time is spent on fleshing out the position. If the pre-hiring process is not sound and studied enough it leads to the same dangerous status of mismatched team workers and the hullabaloo that follows.
Your thoughts?
Visualise the scenario. A person aspiring to be in the senior rungs of a company would come to them without a confirmed meeting. Then they would meet him or her without knowing any prior information or discussion. And they expect to put together a cohesive, effective team this way that would deliver the goods? And who with the right amount of desire for growth would come to such an interview?
This may be an extreme case but it leads us to a pertinent area of learning: How much do prospective employers put into the hiring process? Is it a set exercise of calling the usual search and placement agencies? Is there a clear definition of the requirement and is the communication between the hiring department and HR clear and unambiguous? My HR friends say that the process is quite often set. The usual agencies are called up. Many rue that the job profile and the profile of the person to be hired is often hazy. This gets even hazier if there is a re-vamp of roles or a new role is being created. Oftentimes, not enough time is spent on fleshing out the position. If the pre-hiring process is not sound and studied enough it leads to the same dangerous status of mismatched team workers and the hullabaloo that follows.
Your thoughts?
Monday, May 16, 2011
Transition time- too little or too much?
A young man I met recently constantly referred to his company as “They….” I asked him somewhere along the conversation when he had joined this place and he said he had come there seven months back. He also made references to his older employer and used the term “we”.
It so happened that in the same week I met an HR manager who confidently shared with me her training calendar and the activities she planned to do with me. When I referred to a past communication with the company I learnt that she had been around for just about a month. The contrast between the two experiences couldn’t have been greater.
Since then I have tried to list out in my mind: Who are the people who immediately get into the skin of their roles? And who are ones that take longer? I cannot seem to- as of yet- establish any certain pattern or apply any particular attributes to these lists.
I am thinking along the following lines: How long does it take for a person to identify with an employer? Are there any HR processes to assess this transition? Is there any ideal duration or average time span allotted to this? Is it important to shorten this adaptation time? And whose responsibility is it? And finally I would like to study the connection between this adaptation time and attrition rate. Does a shorter adaptation time allude to a lower attrition rate?
My study of this aspect of employment is in its nascent stages and your contributions, thoughts, ideas would help to build upon this still-fragile foundation.
It so happened that in the same week I met an HR manager who confidently shared with me her training calendar and the activities she planned to do with me. When I referred to a past communication with the company I learnt that she had been around for just about a month. The contrast between the two experiences couldn’t have been greater.
Since then I have tried to list out in my mind: Who are the people who immediately get into the skin of their roles? And who are ones that take longer? I cannot seem to- as of yet- establish any certain pattern or apply any particular attributes to these lists.
I am thinking along the following lines: How long does it take for a person to identify with an employer? Are there any HR processes to assess this transition? Is there any ideal duration or average time span allotted to this? Is it important to shorten this adaptation time? And whose responsibility is it? And finally I would like to study the connection between this adaptation time and attrition rate. Does a shorter adaptation time allude to a lower attrition rate?
My study of this aspect of employment is in its nascent stages and your contributions, thoughts, ideas would help to build upon this still-fragile foundation.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Qualification versus Experience
Annabhau Damle, 50, has worked on this shop floor for the past 32 years. He is now Supervisor. He has always been popular in the factory. The management looked at him whenever any cultural event had to organized. He took on the responsibility happily. Over the years he had become the unofficial arbitrator for any disputes, quarrels or disagreements on the floor. Before taking any step, the management always consulted him to pre-empt the response of the employees.
This was till a few months back. Over the past few months there has been a marked change in his demeanour and attitude. He is irritable and angry often. At other times he is glum and quiet. He gets offended easily. His friends in the factory tell you in hushed tones that this started when the new, young 25-year old supervisor joined the company at a higher grade. The young manager was now his immediate boss. He had to report to him.
So is Damle wrong in feeling this way? Or is the young manager not giving him enough status and space? And by doing that could he be jeopardizing his own role or responsibilities? Or does the ‘mistake’ lie not with either of the two men but somewhere else?
I think over this real-life situation and wonder if there is a solution. I believe that if Damle and his colleagues were sensitized to the changes in the management structure earlier, may be things would have been different. I feel that instead of dropping the bombshell – read spanking new manager- on the shop floor, an orientation exercise should have been conducted. In the absence of such an exercise everyone stands to suffer: the older workers feel endangered and naturally resent the new fellow; the new fellow for no fault of his has to wade through the resentment and difficult vibrations in his work place.
Companies have grandiose growth plans. But rarely are people’s issues addressed right from the start of such plans. More often, solutions to such issues are afterthoughts and hastily put together. Change management training is done but seems more like a routine, mandatory requirement rather than something that actually focusses on the emotional quotient required for a bunch of co-workers to stay together in spirit.
But change management after all can’t be only for direct profit-making. Your thoughts?
This was till a few months back. Over the past few months there has been a marked change in his demeanour and attitude. He is irritable and angry often. At other times he is glum and quiet. He gets offended easily. His friends in the factory tell you in hushed tones that this started when the new, young 25-year old supervisor joined the company at a higher grade. The young manager was now his immediate boss. He had to report to him.
So is Damle wrong in feeling this way? Or is the young manager not giving him enough status and space? And by doing that could he be jeopardizing his own role or responsibilities? Or does the ‘mistake’ lie not with either of the two men but somewhere else?
I think over this real-life situation and wonder if there is a solution. I believe that if Damle and his colleagues were sensitized to the changes in the management structure earlier, may be things would have been different. I feel that instead of dropping the bombshell – read spanking new manager- on the shop floor, an orientation exercise should have been conducted. In the absence of such an exercise everyone stands to suffer: the older workers feel endangered and naturally resent the new fellow; the new fellow for no fault of his has to wade through the resentment and difficult vibrations in his work place.
Companies have grandiose growth plans. But rarely are people’s issues addressed right from the start of such plans. More often, solutions to such issues are afterthoughts and hastily put together. Change management training is done but seems more like a routine, mandatory requirement rather than something that actually focusses on the emotional quotient required for a bunch of co-workers to stay together in spirit.
But change management after all can’t be only for direct profit-making. Your thoughts?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
shall we share? - II
My last post pondered over knowledge sharing. Should it be expected of a senior to share? Is it his duty? Or is he justified in some circumstances at least for not sharing it all? The responses from the industry seniors were impressive and heartening. One said that in the corporate environment it was virtually your duty to share your learning with your juniors, your team. Someone thought that way when you started out. Now it is your turn to do it.
Another’s response verged on the philosophical. “Whether a junior learns or not, whether he is callous about it or takes it for granted is not my concern”, he says. “It is for me to share because I see it as my duty, my obligation. What the other fellow does with the information and knowledge- whether he distils it into wisdom or trashes it is his choice.”
“I learn from the younger generation too”, says an HR director, “because the one casualty of climbing up the corporate ladder can be the inevitable distance you create from ground realities”. “These people then become our eyes and ears. We interpret their raw data and both parties learn in the bargain”, she concludes.
Well! All these explanations fit neatly in the corporate place. But whether Sanjeev Kapoor feels a similar obligation to share his critical tricks is to be yet seen.
Another’s response verged on the philosophical. “Whether a junior learns or not, whether he is callous about it or takes it for granted is not my concern”, he says. “It is for me to share because I see it as my duty, my obligation. What the other fellow does with the information and knowledge- whether he distils it into wisdom or trashes it is his choice.”
“I learn from the younger generation too”, says an HR director, “because the one casualty of climbing up the corporate ladder can be the inevitable distance you create from ground realities”. “These people then become our eyes and ears. We interpret their raw data and both parties learn in the bargain”, she concludes.
Well! All these explanations fit neatly in the corporate place. But whether Sanjeev Kapoor feels a similar obligation to share his critical tricks is to be yet seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)