I was talking to a friend over the holiday, who told me about a situation at work. It seems there is an open position that the manager is looking to fill. He has a dynamite candidate – already a “temp” in a connected role. He’d love to hire him, but the corporate HR department says the candidate is not on the “Approved” list – some corporate document or process HR created of candidates who “should” be considered for the position. No one on the HR “Approved” list is from inside the organization and none of them know all of the subtle nuances of the project/process the current position is involved with. The “temp” candidate is perfect for the position and could be hired immediately, but corporate HR is dragging its feet because this means going outside of “procedure.”
This saga is being added to my growing list of tales of woe told to me by managers and employees against HR-created debacles. It seems in an effort to become “relevant” to organizations, HR departments have over-shot their usefulness and have actually impeded progress, let alone innovation. Recruitment and hiring practices are just one category I have, but the stories are myriad. When it comes to interviewing and hiring, HR’s role should be more of a “coach on the sidelines.” In one organization I worked with, their practices were some of the best I had seen or participated in.
- The Recruiting group provided lists of possible candidates, with additional input from the hiring manager and his/her direct reports.
- Team members (yes, the employees) conducted the interviews and made final recommendations to the hiring manager. These employees were trained and certified in the organization’s interview and selection process – including legal issues – and carried out their responsibilities with an unrivaled fervor. After all, this was a person THEY would be working with.
- Final say was the responsibility of the hiring manager, who sent the results to HR for record-keeping and processing.
HR’s role throughout the whole process was “advice and counsel” – nothing more. The lack of intervention actually propelled an unencumbered process that people actually looked forward to. It was a process employees took VERY seriously. They were empowered and responsible for a decision that would impact them for quite some time.
I go back to my original point. Relevance does not necessarily mean “being in the middle of.” The best coaches are the ones who can stand on the sidelines, guide, suggest, provide insight and counsel – then get out of the way of those who have the responsibility of moving the ball.
