What's Humane about Human Resources?

       Recently,  I have been on a job search again, and I've noticed a progression over the years towards the de-humanization of Human Resources at almost every company to which I apply.  Now I may upset more than a few people with this article, including my sister, who was once head of a Human Resource department. However in my opinion,  "HR" people are not the best representation of a company. In fact, I can state with credibility that they are sometimes the worst choice to represent your company.


      For example,  when I would recruit at universities and colleges in the Los Angeles area, notably USC, UCLA, Pepperdine, and others, I never liked to bring an HR person. Why?  Because half the time they are eliminating candidates based upon some random behavior they noted in an interview.  After screening candidates a few years back, I sat down with our HR Director and we reviewed a pool of candidates.
HR Director: "I don't like this guy, he stared at me too long during the interview.  I think he would scare away customers."
Me: "Isn't eye contact good?"
HR Director: "Yes, but not this kind.  His right eye barely moved.  It was frightening. It had this glaze over, almost kinda dead look to it."
Me: "Really?  You do realize that he has a fake eye?  He mentioned it to us last time we were on campus."
HR Director: "Oh! Hmmmm.  I guess he's okay then. Sorry I didn't know that."
Me: " You did the screening!  Aren't these your notes on the back of the resume?"
HR Director: " Oh yeah.  We see so many people it's hard to remember them all."
Me: " I see.  Yeah we interview so many people with fake eyes I can see where you might miss one."


    They spend more time disqualifying candidates rather than trying to hire them.  It's called "weeding".  They want to make sure they weed out all the bad candidates to get to the good ones.  The problem is there is so much room for discretionary judgement, and I'm not so certain HR people are as objective as you might think.  The following conversation was one I had with an HR person following a recruiting trip to Pepperdine.


HR: "I don't like this girl.  She's European, and she's way too pretty for this position."
Me: "I thought we were sticking to just the qualifications and not focusing on the people yet."
HR: "We are, but I don't see her as working out.  She'll manipulate people into buying, and she won't sell them."
Me: " Wow.  You really think so?  How long was your interview with her."
HR: " Like 10 minutes.  But I can glean a lot from a person in ten minutes."
Me: " Really?  Glean? Are you Edward from the movie "Twilight"?"
HR: " Very funny.  I wish I could do that.  I love that movie.  But I don't love this candidate.  She's not the right fit."
Me: " And what's your basis for that judgement?  Because the sales rep and the sales manager liked her."
HR: " European background.  I'm not sure she understands the American work ethic.  They all get 8 weeks vacation over there you know.  It's a red flag. Too pretty and too European. We should pass on her."
Me: " Okay, yeah no, I'm going to move her forward in the process."


(It was a good thing I did move her forward because the candidate turned out to be a great management trainee)


Human Resources is really no longer about humans.  It is now more about the resource.  People have developed this field into a science, almost like geology, however here we are "mining" people.  In fact, Human Resources is a business major at many college and universities.   I guess technically it is now a science. Well trained Human Resource specialists are searching for a diamond in a pile of coal, or a nugget of gold surrounded by clumps of pyrite.  It is a difficult task and not everyone can do a good job of finding that "mother lode".  That's why during the Gold Rush not that many people got rich. It's a crap shoot.


Recently, I've been receiving a lot of calls from company recruiters. I find it ironic when HR recruiters from companies identify themselves to me as Talent Acquisition Specialists. What is this a theater company?  During an interview with one of these "talent acquisition specialists", I told him I wasn't a good dancer, as a joke, and he responded in a dead pan voice:
"You don't need that skill set for this position." I nearly dropped my phone  and the call!
Are you acquiring talent or are you just screening out what you determine as poor talent? It's hard to determine talent when your only interview is over the phone.  Would a movie director hire an actor without a screen test? Heck no!  I always do well on phone interviews, but can you really get an idea of how well a person will perform a job over a fiber optic network? 


I think the problem with Human Resource personnel is they see so many bad candidates that it's difficult for them to determine which one's are good anymore.  They spend so much of their days dealing with the negative aspects of business such as the firings, downsizing, disciplinary actions, that they can no longer "relate" to people. In fact, I would argue that they ostracized themselves so they can remain objective.


 HR employees cannot and will not empathize with employees because it's too painful for them on a personal level, and it would make their job that much more difficult if they saw a person sitting in front of them as more then a number.  This is a major problem in this field and why it needs a paradigm shift, especially in this economy.  With so many layoffs, firings, and dips in the economy more than ever we need to put a humane face of the science of Human Resources.  Let's put the H back into HR.


-M