Navigating Recruitment Dilemmas: Is It Better to Train Promising Candidates or Only Hire the Best?

Hi friends,

My company was just undergoing the recruitment process. I came across a few candidates who were extremely good and were immediately selected. There were a few who were just next to good, and the third category was junk. Now, coming to the second category, I sometimes sit and think, as a recruiter, what is easier - selecting or rejecting a candidate of this category. Because I knew that they may prove to be good after training, but then why incur extra costs to train them? Why not just hire the best out of them?

What do you say?

Dips

Hi Deepali,

First of all, I will say no candidate is a junk. As an HR professional, try to empathize with them. We should respect human resources. You can say they don't match your company standards, and of course, rejection is harder as we dash the hopes of a lot of people. You really post interesting questions. What do you say?

Regards,
Vishal

Hey,

Right, you are. I was really wrong on referring to them as junk. Actually, I realized it exactly after I posted it. It wasn't intentional. You know, I feel the same while dashing their hopes. I come across candidates who have lost their father, who are teachers and have great experience, but then coming to call center to earn good money. It really sometimes leaves me thinking.

Dips

Emotionally speaking: Rejection

Practically speaking: Selection

It is much easier to reject a person if you are practical enough and know that they will not fit the job requirements. However, it is very difficult to select a person, as many factors need to be taken into account before inducting them into our organization.

Hello Deppali Ji,

Let's give them a chance, ah! Now you might ask for the cost of training them. Hey, see, let me ask you: What if you have taken in a very good candidate, and after all your training, what if he joins another company? There too, you will have the problem of cost. So, it's better not to focus solely on the cost.

To be frank with you, as management practitioners, we all have to be cost-sensitive. However, let's ensure that there is a touch of heart in our decision-making. Not necessarily empathy or sympathy, but a bit of heart. Hiring the best candidate and providing training to make them compatible with our work environment will increase their commitment to the firm. Since they are compatible with our work culture and practices, they will strive to grow within our organization, not beyond.

After all, as HR managers, you need that, isn't it?

With prayers and regards,
Sachu

Hi all,

Oops! 🙁 Sorry, Manu, that wasn't for you. That was for Sachu, but anyways, what you said is quite confusing.

Dips

Dear Dips,

The role of selection in an organization's effectiveness is crucial for at least two reasons.

1. Work performance depends upon individuals - according to me in the text of HR concepts, the best way to improve performance is to hire people who have the competence and willingness to work. Arguing from the employee's viewpoint, poor or inappropriate choice can be demoralizing to the individual concerned (who finds himself or herself in the wrong job) and demotivating to the rest of the workforce.

2. The cost incurred in recruiting and hiring personnel speaks volumes about the role of selection. Here is one instance to prove how expensive recruitment has become. Pepsi has gone for a crash recruitment drive. Six people from the company took over the entire Oberoi Business Center in Mumbai for six days; 3000 applications in response to an advertisement issued earlier were scanned; applicants were asked to respond by fax within 100 hours. Finally, the shortlisted persons were flown in and interviewed. Quite an expensive affair by any standard, isn't it?

The point of my dimension is that the costs of wrong selections are much greater.

Success: True positive
Failure: False negative
Failure predicted: High hit
Success predicted: Low hit

The above grid shows four possible outcomes of selection decisions.

So Dips, what I feel is that an organization with false positive errors incurs a few costs.

1. Costs incurred while the person is employed, this can result in process or profit losses, damaged company reputation, and the like.
2. Training costs, as you mentioned, the costs of replacing an employee with a fresh one (opportunity cost).

So what I feel is you should maintain a true blue professional approach without getting into human emotions because you are on the most deliverable side representing your org.

So... according to me, selection, on the other hand, is negative in its application as much as it seeks to eliminate as many unqualified applicants as possible in order to identify the right candidates.

Hai na Deepali?

Animesh

Dear Dips,

The role of selection in an organization's effectiveness is crucial for at least two reasons.

1. Work performance depends on the individual - according to me and the text on HR concepts, the best way to improve performance is to hire people who have the competence and willingness to work. Arguing from the employee's viewpoint, poor or inappropriate choices can be demoralizing to the individual concerned (who finds themselves in the wrong job) and demotivating to the rest of the workforce.

2. The cost incurred in recruiting and hiring personnel speaks volumes about the role of selection. Here is one instance to prove how expensive recruitment has become: Pepsi conducted a crash recruitment drive. Six people from the company took over the entire Oberoi Business Center in Mumbai for six days; 3000 applications in response to an advertisement issued earlier were scanned; applicants were asked to respond by fax within 100 hours; finally, the shortlisted persons were flown in and interviewed. Quite an expensive affair by any standard, isn't it?

My point of dimension is that the costs of wrong selections are much greater.

Success False negative True positive

Error High hit

Failure True negative False positive

Low hit Error

Failure predicted Success predicted

The above grid shows the four possible outcomes of selection decisions.

So Dips, what I feel is that an organization with false positive errors incurs a few costs.

1. Costs incurred while the person is employed, this can result in process or profit losses, damaged company reputation, and the like.

2. Training costs, as you mentioned, costs of replacing an employee with a fresh one (opportunity cost).

So, what I feel is you should maintain a true blue professional approach without getting into human emotions because you are on the most deliverable side representing your organization.

So...according to me, selection is negative in its application as much as it seeks to eliminate as many unqualified applicants as possible in order to identify the right candidates.

Hai na Deepali?

Animesh

Hi Animesh,

Thank you for your kind remarks. It is true that being emotional during this process cannot always be helpful, but rejecting a candidate is indeed emotionally challenging.

Dips

One more in favour of Selection being difficult for rejecting a candidate. You don't require many skills; even I can reject a potentially good candidate if I am not able to evaluate correctly.

For selecting the right candidate, you need to have sufficient skills. You should be more qualified, experienced, and in a better position than him/her.

Deepali,

This is the difference between you (as an HR professional) and those who are being rejected. You see selection as a repetitive test - profile matching (behavioral and technical), but the one who is rejected thinks ... what if she would have selected me. Read my earlier mail: "Error in selection leads to a demotivation factor."

Dips, you seem to be quite emotional.

Animesh

Hi Animesh,

Yes, I am probably a fresher, and it'll take some time to get practical and to take things as they are. That's the reason why I find rejection difficult.

Dips

Hi Animesh,

Thank you for passing consent in my favor. However, as a student, I am looking forward to learning many things about HR from you. Let's stay in touch.

Best regards,
Dipss

As an applicant - give me selection EVERY time :D

As a recruiter - breaking the news about rejection is definitely not my favorite thing to do.

Hey folks,

Now that a number of new members have joined the forum, we have all gained some experience. I thought of starting this thread again. I would like to hear your views, pals...

Dips

Hi,

In hiring, we just cannot be emotional; we must have the best intentions for our organization. Only the best fitting candidate should be hired. Anyways, I have noticed that during your initial phase of professional life, you do feel emotional, but later when the same candidate disappoints you and leaves after the company has invested in them, you realize the downside of being too emotional.

Bhavana

Dear All,

There is one important point we seem to be missing out on. Selection or rejection here, per se, is based on the fitment to a job. There is nothing to empathize or sympathize here. If there is a right fit, he/she is going to be hired for the job. In cat-on-the-wall cases, we hire them only when we are not able to get the right fit for a particular position for many reasons. In fact, sometimes by rejecting them, we might be doing a lot of good for them wherein they will be able to secure a job matching their strengths. This might seem harsh, but this is how many of us operate. Nobody recruits a person based on sympathy or empathy.

Regards,
Harsha

I agree that in practical terms, selecting is harder. But I don't have a huge problem with not selecting people. Rather than thinking of it as a rejection, I frame it as a "not yet" type of discussion, with some feedback as to how they can get closer to the company requirements.

It's then up to the candidate to assess the value in taking this advice.

I agree with one of the earlier respondents who said there is no point in being emotional about hiring or rejection. These individuals don't get emotional about the plight of the HR professional who recruited them when they are job hopping, do they? It's business for us, and for them.

Hey folks,

The point here is not just being emotional, but in the process of recruitment, we sometimes face difficult rejections, although they can be on any grounds.

Dips

I regret but I disagree with your views because no person is a scrap; it's the circumstances into which they don't fit at that moment.

During my project, I had been to two of the most prestigious institutes for campus placements. My project focused on the study of recruitment and selection processes. I was also a part of the panel and found a candidate who, despite being an underdog in his written performance, secured the position after overcoming all the hurdles of group discussions and personal interviews. The reverse situation occurred at the National Fire Service College in Nagpur, where the brighter and more active candidate got the position. However, the final selection was based on psychological and aptitude grounds, the basic criteria.

So, dear, it's challenging to judge what's inside the box of chocolates unless you taste it; you'll never know. Rejection is a difficult process. Imagine asking your friend or colleague to resign, especially someone with a family and dependents. There are other aspects to consider such as CTC, statutory obligations, unrest, disputes, union matters, and much more. Despite everything, we have to comply, barking at the owner's will.

Finally, I'll say that selection is easier when compared to rejection.

Regards,
Pritam

I feel selection is easier because at the time of rejection, it may be the case as we all may not be 100% sure about our own question. And once the future is in our hands, we must not feel that we are doing injustice to him.