More than good, the topic that you have raised is fresh ( with reference to the repetitive topics on cite HR).
My take on this :
Whom do you call "Hiring Manager" ? The one who knows the technical aspects of the job--- If it is the case then there is plethora of research on why technical persons alone should not be making hiring decisions.
Actually , in an attempt to separate chaff from the wheat , you are not looking at behavioral aspects of hiring. Attitude is the last thing an employer wants to change, most of the corporations want to have people with right attitude and that's why HR guys are assigned to screen resumes - to look for traces of right attitude. They are there to read between the lines and not only what is written. Such traces can be found in use of words, formats, length of resumes etc. There is no doubt, junior recruiter will not be skilled enough to do that but with experience , they also learn this art.
Moreover, the resume will anyway go through the eyes of hiring manager because at some point of time candidate shall be interviewed by hiring manager - actually, the whole interview process is a resume screening process and that's why there are multiple rounds of interview. Looking at candidates primarily from technical expertise point of view and not from behavioral viewpoint is something that i personally do not support.
However, more inputs are welcome !!!
20th August 2013 From India, Delhi
Thanks for coming in !
Could you please point me to some specific Research Links on why the Technical Manager alone should not be making the Hiring Decisions ?
Attitude is important . At the same time, it is an" intangible " highly suspect to interpretations and situations. Similarly " Performance Based Hiring " is what many people claim they do / should be done - how they really identify such performance beyond what is on CV and reference checks sometimes is also a mystery !
In any case, to my mind involving the Manager early on may lead to many other unforeseen situations. What if the Hiring Manager repeatedly finds out that people with lesser " experience " than him are earning more than hm ? Or rejects good people early on itself since he sees them as a threat to himself ? Or recommends someone not in line with the Salary structure of the Company ? A Recruiter - whether internal or external - tries to balance all these things out and present only those to the Hiring / Technical Manager which pass such screenings.Besides of course saving the Time for the Hiring Manager and allowing him to focus on his job.
Just some things which come to mind. Right / Wrong / Add More !
Would love to have the experienced HR pros share their views !
21st August 2013 From United States, New York
Just wanted to push this up in the " mindshare " of the readers since , IMHO , it is rather important and deserves more discussions.
To summarize :
a) Recruitment is a major HR process. And screening of resumes is a major component of that process.
b) Some people feel that Recruiters are essentially a Hindrance and not a facilitator and do not add value. Specific suggestion is that Screening of resumes should be done NOT by the Recruiter but by the " Hiring Manager " - generally, to whom the position reports .
What is the view of the HR Fraternity ? is this already being done in any organization ? With what results ?
Kindly share all your views and experiences.
Thanks much !
28th August 2013 From United States, New York