Appreciating HR In The Hiring Process

I have come to see the light: when hiring to fill positions I can see that HR has a valuable role to play and that role is to protect the organization, writ large, from the hiring manager's inexperience in hiring. Much as the hiring manager might know all about the domain into which they are hiring, the hiring manager is rarely an expert in hiring itself. The hiring manager is likely to be blind to questions of equal access and unconscious bias. The hiring manager might be great at detecting and nurturing talent but unaware of anything else, which is how you get technology groups whose members are all in the same demographic--all good at their jobs and good hires individually, but collective a lawsuit waiting to happen. HR is there to make sure that the hiring process does not run afoul of the large number of laws and regulations and policies governing hiring.

This is a relatively recent development in my thinking. For most of my career in technology HR has been a hurdle to be gotten over, an impediment to hiring the people I want to hire or to getting a job for which I was a particularly strong candidate.

It was always hiring manager versus HR, never hiring manager and HR. They were never a help and always a hindrance. Or so it appeared.

The problem I had with HR was that HR insisted on doing the initial screening of candidates, or hiring someone to do that screening. But HR never has a deep understanding of whatever specific technical domain into which I was hiring or being hired. So my concern that talented individuals were being screened out was high, especially since many talented technologists are not personable, not charming, not good at self-promotion and certainly not often gifted graphic artists producing visually appealing resumes.

Note that I am not talking about minimum competence here: I suppose that basic keyword rules and qualification requirements suffice to determine minimum competence. And if they don't, hiring managers can usually spot the dud and move on. I am talking about HR or their proxy screening out candidates who would be great for reasons that are not germane.

This is not mere paranoia on my part. Here are some very nearly verbatim comments on technologist's resumes that I have heard from HR folks or people working in firms hired by HR to do the screening:

I hate "career objective" blocks at the top of the resume. I automatically reject them.

This format is so five years ago. People should update their resume formats when they look for a job, not just the contents.

There are too few keywords on this resume.

There are too many keywords on this resume.

From the other side of the table, once I was recruited specifically for a job for which I was an ideal candidate--the VP's words, not mine--but was ultimately rejected because HR figured that with my resume I was worth 2.5 times what the job paid, so they wouldn't let the VP offer me the job at the agreed upon salary but neither would they let the VP pay me more. And then they dinged the VP for not filling this opening. It was hard to see how this was a win for anyone involved. Last I checked this position was still unfilled.

Upon reflection I realized that my core issue with HR was the fear that they could not recognize talent, they could only judge personal presentation and experience. These are reasonable things to judge but surely talent is just as important? What if there were a way that people who are utterly unfamiliar with the domain could make sure they were only selecting talented candidates? What if we could augment their current process with a talent dimension? This is what Pythia Cyber's talent assessment stack is all about.

Now I have a new attitude toward HR. Let HR be HR: let them safeguard the process, let them protect the organization from legal liability and the hiring manager from unconscious bias. Add a way to make sure that the people they let through the screen have the chops to do the job and everyone is happy. Ask us how.