HR Dilemma: Should Compassion or Skills Guide Hiring Decisions? Let's Discuss!

Respected Seniors and my dear fellow members,

I would like to narrate an incident to you which created a dilemma for me as an HR professional. I believe, just like me, there may be several other HR professionals who have faced this too.

Some time back, I was working with an International BPO. As most of you must be knowing, BPOs hire freshers/college goers on a regular basis. The only criteria they should meet is they should have good communication skills and they should be able to sell concepts/products (as it was an outbound call centre). While recruiting junior level people, I met one candidate whose communication skills were average, but he was from a very needy family and needed the job badly. He told me during the interview that he would do anything to improve his communication skills and would give his best. On the other hand, I had one candidate whose communication skills were good and already had one offer in hand, so he was trying to negotiate on the salary part. The voice and accent trainer was more keen on recruiting the one with good communication skills for obvious reasons. However, my inner self asked me to give a chance to the needy person with average skills. He not only managed to polish his communication skills but he outperformed on the floor simply because he needed cash to support his family.

When I look back at this incident now, I sometimes think, did I do injustice to the person with good communication skills just because he had another offer in hand and was acting pricey? Did I lose out on a good candidate?

I invite your suggestions, viewpoints, and comments on yet another HR dilemma.

Thanks and Regards,

Indrani Chakraborty

No, I don't think that you made an injustice to that guy. In fact, your decision was correct because that guy already had an offer letter from another company. So, it was not a big loss for him. Instead, you helped a needy person, and as you mentioned, he also outperformed. Therefore, he is also an asset to the company.

Hi,

As Deepti mentioned, what you did was right on one part. Since the other guy already had a job, it was not an injustice to him. But try to avoid letting your emotions take control of any situations. People may say whatever they want in interviews. We are recruiting for an organization, so whatever decision you make will not only affect you but others as well. Just think on the other side. What if the person has lied to you? What if the person did not improve his skills? You will be held responsible, and his poor language could have affected the organization. Please avoid letting your emotions make decisions. Recruit candidates whom the organization is looking for, not the other side.

Hope I wasn't too rude.

Regards,
Vasanth
9940158323

Hi Deepti,

Thank you for your comments. I acknowledge that the guy outperformed on the floor, but I never gave a chance to the other person. What if he would have performed better than this guy?

Hi Vasanth,

I absolutely agree with you when you say the person might have lied to me. But that can be the case with both the employees. When I told the person with good communication skills that there can be no further revision on his salary figure as it was as per his expectations, he reluctantly said that he was willing to join. What if he would not have joined? He told me he had an offer of around 5k more than the amount we had offered; what if he was telling a lie? So it's up to the HR professional to decide which is the truth.

I agree I was partially driven by emotion, but then again I also kept the organizational goal in mind. I saw the spark in him, the hunger in him to grow, which definitely proved to be beneficial for the company in the future.

People from a sales background quote any figures during interviews, but an HR professional has to identify a person who has the zeal to grow. The reason behind that can be money, prestige, position, or anything. To me, it appeared that the needy person had a stronger reason to excel in life. From his CV, I could make out that he had done his schooling from Govt-aided organizations, but his scores were ranging from 70-80%; that somehow gave me an idea that he is an achiever in life.

But maybe I was wrong, but I will keep your advice in mind and will try to have a more balanced approach towards such decisions in the future.

Thanks and Regards,

Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indu,

Even I think you have not done anything wrong in this case since you have found a quality candidate. However, as mentioned by Vasanth, I believe we should not consider factors other than the parameters required from the candidate for the company. I am adding this point because I have had a similar experience where people who had issues were given a chance, but they did not stay for long, leading to the need for replacements.

Looking forward to your views on this.

Regards,
Amith R.

Hi Amit,

Thank you for your comment. Your post is exactly the reason why I started the debate. In this situation, my decision has not failed me, but I wanted to know how such kind of decisions have affected our fellow HR professionals, and I wanted to take lessons from the same. Thank you for sharing your experiences. As for Vasanths' comments, I have already put forward my views on the same. Kindly go through them.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Akhilesh,

Thank you for your suggestion and thanks for the help extended, but I don't have his papers with me now as I have left that company. He got a promotion in the said company and is still serving there.

Thanks and Regards,

Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indu,

Your decision was an excellent one. If we consider the situation of both the candidates, then I feel what you have done is prudent on your side. The other person wants to only negotiate on salary, i.e., he is after money primarily, and these kinds of people won't stay long in your organization and would leave as soon as he gets another offer with more money. I also agree with my other friend who says that we should be professional and not be ruled by emotions. But what I feel is that we have to be wise in our decision simply. You'd better not go by emotions, but in this case, it's not only emotions.

Don't worry, Indu, you have not done anything bad to the other candidate but have surely done good to the current candidate.

Rahul

Hi Rahul,

Thank you very much for your comments. Honestly speaking, now when I look back at this decision, I find some rationale which formed the base for such a decision. Initially, I had sleepless nights thinking about the other candidate whom I did not select. I also had to face a lot of questions from the management side as well as from the training department as to why I did not select him.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

On a moral standpoint, I believe that if you are comfortable with the decision you made, then it must be a good one.

Now I'm going to be really blunt:

However, from the point of view of the business, I think that you definitely failed. You are employed by your organization not to be empathetic to candidates, but to employ the best person for the job, and the organization trusts you not to compromise on that. Once a part of the organization, sure, be empathetic to the employees.

You probably could have sought another opening or looked at other functions within your BPO to place the other person you let go. You will never know now; the person might have taken your organization to greater heights. You made an error, now live with it and learn from it...

Hi Karena,

Thank you for your comments. From the organization's point of view, I believe I have not made a mistake because the person I recruited performed beyond our expectations and is still performing. The decision I took was discussed with the management, and after the initial hiccups, management was convinced of this decision. I am still in doubt as to whether I did injustice to the person with good communication skills.

But if you say that I have made a mistake and I have to live with it, then perhaps I have to.

If I face a similar situation, I will remember your advice, but then again, I will never stop listening to what my intuitions say. If we just select or reject people based only on their abilities, then even a machine can do that. Take two candidates, give them a questionnaire, ask them to answer, based on the results, make your selection. Why do you need an HR professional then? An HR professional is the person who needs to probe into areas like what the candidate expects from the company, where they think they can fit in the organization, etc. and if their expectations align with the organization's expectations, then and only then can we recruit them.

Thanks and Regards,

Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indu,

You made the right decision, so please don't repent. I would say there is an implicit relation between a person's needs and their performance. The other individual who tried to negotiate with you based on the offer in hand has given 90% weightage to money and only 10% to the work within your company. Since he is a 'perfect' guy in terms of industry-specific skills, poachers can easily motivate him to leave the company, whereas a person with average skills needs to enhance their skills before considering such a move. Additionally, the learning support and empathy shown to him might have developed a sense of commitment towards the company. If the company can provide the right kind of environment for growth (careful nurturing is required), that person could be a valuable asset to your company for a long period.

Best of luck,
Sreekumar J

Indu,

I didn't mean to be harsh, but I told you exactly what I thought was wrong. I don't understand, though, how does negotiating a pay package make a good candidate a bad one?

Hi Sreekumar,

Thank you for your comments. I have posted this topic on the HR community because only an experienced HR professional can empathize with me. I have discussed this with my friends who are working as call center agents, but they failed to understand the dilemma.

Keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indu,

I think, as Rahul has pointed out, we need to study the attitude and also the salary that they will be looking out for. This would probably help us a little to judge how long they can stay.

Regards,

Amith R.

Hi Karena,

You were not harsh or rude at all. The problem with typing emails is that you cannot always express your correct state of mind (my personal opinion) :)

The person negotiating his salary did not come off as bad. Capability-wise, he was always good. However, when I informed him that I was unable to revise his offer, he reluctantly agreed. This raised doubts about his stability. I questioned whether he would actually join and whether he would stay for an extended period. I must mention that we used to provide free voice and accent training to all new recruits for 1.5 months. It would be costly for us if he left the company after the training. Therefore, I labeled him as a "doubtful but good candidate."

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indu,

I have read some of the comments, and I feel everyone is right in their respective views. You said that the guy you hired has improved on his skills. That's very good for the company. If everyone starts looking for the best, then where will the average ones go? There should also be scope for improvement.

You mentioned that the other guy reluctantly said yes when you offered him the job. So there was a chance that he would have left whenever he got a new one. Therefore, I think you took the right decision.

Regards,
Anuradha

Hi Vasanth,

I absolutely agree with you when you say the person might have lied to me. But that can be the case with both the employees. When I told the person with good communication skills that there can be no further revision on his salary figure as it was as per his expectations, he reluctantly said that he was willing to join. What if he would not have joined? He told me he had an offer of around 5k more than the amount we had offered; what if he was telling a lie? So it's up to the HR professional to decide which is the truth.

I agree I was partially driven by emotion, but then again I also kept the organizational goal in mind. I saw the spark in him, the hunger in him to grow which definitely proved to be beneficial for the company in the future. People from a sales background quote any figures during interviews, but an HR professional has to identify a person who has the zeal to grow. The reason behind that can be money, prestige, position, or anything. To me, it appeared that the needy person had a stronger reason to excel in life. From his CV, I could make out that he had done his schooling from Govt-aided organizations but his scores were ranging from 70-80%; that somehow gave me an idea that he is an achiever in life.

But maybe I was wrong, but I will keep your advice in mind and will try to have a more balanced approach towards such decisions in the future.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Indu,

You have done a great job by giving an offer to a person who is really in need of a job. I feel that's how an HR should act. If the person lies to you, it's just to get the job not for anything else. Simply great job! :) :) :) :) :)

---
I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in the user's input. I have also ensured proper paragraph formatting and maintained the original meaning and tone of the message. Let me know if you need any further assistance.

Hi Vishwanath,

Thank you for your comments. I cannot really express how much words of encouragement mean to a person who is still in the process of shaping his/her career.

Thanks and regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

I think that it does not matter how I think. But you asking the question makes your decision a little weaker now.

My weird principle is that a decision is never right or wrong by itself. It is through the actions that follow that make the decision right or wrong. This is simply because we are now analyzing using an event that occurred then. As for your future decisions, your question stands valid. For this, we (maybe only I) are interested to hear whether you went out of the way to 'condition' a selected person's learning and performance, or if there were others in your office who did that and why they did so.

Next question for you is: should the same incident occur, would you decide the same way?

One of my clients based his selection decision on the economic need of the family. Unfortunately, despite efforts on his part, the candidate did not improve. He lost a lot of resources and lost a good applicant. Eventually, he even lost his job. Another client found that recruiting not the best but the most needy person brought him a higher level of loyalty, which was critical for his business.

The question is which way works for you. As an HR professional, I respect any stance.

Respected Senior (Shalav),

Thank you for your comments. I absolutely agree with you when you say that the flow of discussion changes as we are doing a post-mortem analysis. It's a "there and then" situation rather than a "here and now" situation. Unfortunately, at that point in time, I was not aware of Human Resource Management communities; otherwise, I would have put forward these questions to the senior members of the community and sought help from them.

I did not put in any extra efforts for this candidate, neither did the training department nor management. It was the candidate's individual need (economic) that made him put forth his best efforts. I did actually find him practicing the vowel sounds during the lunch break. I saw his colleagues making fun of him because all day long he used to try to correct his diction, but we all saw the result at the end of the day.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Dear All,

We need to be objective in the selection process. Instead of being emotional and comparing two candidates, it would be better to add 'Stayability' and 'Learning Ability' as criteria and score them accordingly. This will improve your process and eliminate your dilemma as well.

What do you think?

Hi Govind,

Thank you for your comments. We can also use the "skill" and "will" matrix for the same. In this person, I saw average skills but a very strong will to perform. Since this was a junior level position, I could recruit him based on the will that I saw in him to outperform. Had it been a senior level opening, my emphasis would have been more on the skill part.

Thanks and regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indrani,

I have been watching this thread and reading the number of comments posted by my colleagues. I would like to offer a slightly different perspective. I recently came back from India where I spoke at an international conference on Employee Retention. HR professionals have processes they must go through to prove their critical business value.

As I read this thread, I was struck by two things: one, your earnest reflection on whether you did the "right thing" by all parties, and two, was this the "right" business decision.

I offer my comments today based on my view of Human Resources as a critical business function. When researching the costs of talent loss to an organization, I became very aware of what I call the "hunger factor". There are times when it is not just competencies an effective interviewer must look at.

Perhaps when all is said and done, a projection of the probability of retention must be factored into the decision-making process. And quite likely, weighted heavily, for organizations can train on job-specific skills and competencies, but the employee must be there to perform. The cost of talent loss replacement is a much greater business consideration for organizations today. You made a good business decision, and one that may have exhibited your "gut" feel, and while you did not indicate you were thinking about retention, ultimately it is the question of the future and I believe one of the measurements of HR effectiveness.

I have said for some time now that unless and until HR can prove their business value as a department, they will not be seen as critical to the business strategy.

Just some of my random thought firings for today, and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Jo Verde

Respected Senior (Jo Verde),

Thank you very much for your comments. Your post definitely opens up new avenues for discussion. I would be obliged if you could shed more light on this "cost of force loss replacement" concept as it would be a learning experience for me and my fellow members. I wish I could talk to you more about employee retention, maybe later.

Best Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indu,

Well, according to me, it's not an injustice done to the guy with good communication; rather, it was the injustice done to the position you were looking for at that particular time because we know that we have to find the 'right person for the right position.' But as you have narrated, this second guy has performed outstandingly, so I suppose there is no need to feel sorry for the decision you made earlier.

Look, Indu, in our profession, one needs to be very rational and pragmatic, though sometimes personal problems cannot be overlooked. I think you made a wise decision, and since things have turned out to be pleasant, you need not feel guilty.

Keep up the good work!

Shipra

Respected Senior (Shipra),

Thank you for your comments. You have opened up a new dimension for discussion. Yes, you are correct. At that point in time, I had done injustice to the position, as you have rightly said the HR's role is to put the "right man to the right job." Fortunately, the decision I took didn't backfire, so my back was saved. But then again, tell me, if I would have recruited the person with good communication skills and he would have left the company in 2-3 months or so, then would it not have been injustice to the job position?

Nevertheless, you have pointed out a very important thing, and I will definitely keep this in mind when I face a similar situation in the future.

Keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indrani,

Your decision was right, though there was an emotional angle to it.

If I were you, I would take the same decision sans the emotions. The reason being, the guy who needed the job has proved his worth through his performance and his loyalty by staying with the company. Remember, a needy person never forgets the one who helped him/her in times of need and their fierce loyalty to the person/organization.

By hiring him, you not only filled a position but also acquired a very good employee who will likely stay with the company for a longer period, considering the volatility of the BPO industry and the high attrition rate.

On the other hand, if you had hired the other guy who already had an offer, he would probably have joined, and there was a high chance he would leave within the next six months if he found a slightly better offer. People who haggle for money might not be long-term players, so caution is advised.

Rest assured, your decision was good. In the future, try to leave the emotional angle out of your decision-making.

All the best,

Richa

Hi Richa,

Thank you for your suggestion. I will definitely keep this "emotional angle" in mind next time I take a decision. Actually, as I climb up the career ladder, I will get more seasoned to emotions, I guess, and I will be able to take decisions more rationally. As long as my decisions are serving in a positive way to the organization, I guess it's okay, but yes, every situation which is different from the routine work of an HR has been a learning experience for me, just like this one.

Thank you once again. Keep posting.

Indrani Chakraborty

I think you should give a chance to the needy person because your company has already given the green signal to hire freshers and college students who may not be perfect in communication skills.

You should also remember that when you completed your MBA, someone must have taken a risk by giving you a chance. The needy person may stay for a longer period than the average tenure, which could be a plus point for the BPO company.

Lastly, yes, we have to work according to the policy, but we are the ones who make things better for our company and the corporate world. If everything were readily available as per your requirements, then there would be no need for trainers.

Vijay

Hi Vijay,

Thank you for your comments. I absolutely agree with you when you say that we are the people who make the difference. But then again, if we see things from the trainer's point of view, we will find that she has exactly 45 days to train a person. After that, the candidate will be on the phone directly interacting with the clients. So, she will definitely try to select people who are trainable within a span of 45 days. Because after training, if they do not perform, she will be answerable to all kinds of questions from the management's side.

Keep posting! :)

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Dear Indrayani,

First of all, I need to tell you that one should control one's emotions when performing HR roles. The reason is that emotions can lead us astray, potentially resulting in either justice or injustice. In your case, your emotions overruled you, leading you to choose the needy candidate. I don't say you are wrong, but what if he had failed to fulfill his promises? What if, due to this incident, your job had been at stake?

It is high time for all of us to realize that as HR professionals, we should not let emotions guide us, as we are responsible for both recruitment and exit interviews. Remember, one should fulfill their duty just as doctors do.

Regards,
Riya

Hi,

If you're dealing with a needy person who is a quick learner and your training department is strong enough, you can give him an opportunity. Without any support to improve the individual, our emotions alone will not be effective.

Regards,
Aruna R Devar

Hi Indrani,

I feel the decision you took was absolutely right because after all, we are dealing with human beings and are not merely looking for cogs to be fitted into some machine. Having said that, also try to be less emotional and more objective in such decision-making. Such decisions may lead to compromising talent.

Regards,
Yogita

Hi Yogita,

Thank you for your comments. You have rightly pointed out that it's not about "fitting a cog into the machine." To be frank, I won't say I was "overruled by emotion" while making this decision, as one of our fellow members has pointed out. However, I did rely on my "gut feel" because it's not a one-time hiring decision that we make. We also need to consider the candidate's commitment to work and whether they will be beneficial for the company in the long run. My gut feeling said that he would be loyal to the company if given a chance, whereas the other person who was negotiating for 2k and 3k would have left the company the moment he received a better offer.

Keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Aruna,

Thank you for your comments. As I have mentioned in one of my earlier posts, the training department did not provide him with any extra inputs, but he had the zeal to learn. So, he put in his 100% effort and outperformed.

Keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indu!

I agree with this quote in toto. You should stick to the basics while selecting a candidate. If the need of the hour was to select a 'ready to deliver' candidate, then you should have gone for the experienced candidate who knew the job. You could have selected the other candidate for some other jobs within your organization. Nowadays people have an active databank of good candidates. You could have tried the same.

But the best part of it is that you made a decision. In personal as well as professional life, we come across a lot of dilemmas because we are dealing with humans.

In this forum, you will come across many such examples. Some of these will be very happy ones giving opportunities to a needy and 'potential-looking' candidate. While some will be cursing candidates who were given an opportunity despite their apparent shortcomings. (I have had a negative experience. Once I selected a village boy as a plant engineer who was needy and promised good performance, but after 8 months, during which we trained him and made him competent, he left).

Life is like this. When we conclude about a candidate's potential, we have to have a scientific background - Psychometric analysis if possible. Zeal and enthusiasm are good words but very hard to quantify. They are subjective, basically. Whatever strategy we adopt in such situations, we should be consistent in practicing. If that consistency is there, our actions are justified by and large.

All in all, first, you should be congratulated for taking a decision and second for bringing it out for discussion.

Best wishes to all for your future dilemmas. We all know they will keep on coming.

Regards,

Hiten

P.S. - Quite an unusual ID you have selected.

Also, hats off to the commitment you have shown in responding to each response/entry by our colleagues.

Respected Senior (Hiten),

Thank you for your comments. I took a certain amount of risk when I recruited this person, but then again, I guess the risk factor was higher if I would have recruited someone who "reluctantly said yes to our offer." But then again, if (like in your case) my decision would have backfired, then I would have had to face the music from the management. Actually, when I got into this job, I was almost a fresher, and I was taught by one of my professors that it is sometimes difficult to recruit freshers because, as you have rightly pointed out, "zeal," "enthusiasm," etc. are not quantifiable, neither do they have any past experiences to back them, so the only thing that can make a difference is their commitment level.

Moreover, although the other guy had good communication skills, he still needed training on a particular US accent, so he was not a ready resource for us, neither was the other guy.

I will remember your advice and will try to implement the same in the future.

Keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,

Indrani Chakraborty

P.S. I will reply to the other comments on the private message board :)

Hi Indrani Chakraborty,

I don't think that you did any injustice to the candidate with good communication skills. What you did at that time was right. By observing the performance of the candidate you hired, who was doing very well, there is no need to feel guilty. Do whatever you like and what you think is right.

So, keep smiling always! 😄

Regards,
Shilpi

Karenafonso,

On a moral standpoint, I believe that if you are comfortable with the decision you made, then it must be a good one.

Now I'm going to be really blunt:

However, from the point of view of the business, I think that you definitely failed. You are employed by your organization not to be empathetic to candidates, but to employ the best person for the job, and the organization trusts you not to compromise on that. Once a part of the organization, sure, be empathetic to the employees. You probably could have sought another opening or looked at other functions within your BPO to place the other person you let go. You will never know now; the person might have taken your organization to greater heights. You made an error, now live with it and learn from it...

Indu,

I have gone through many of the views mentioned here. Personally, I think you made a good choice. Most HR personnel are aware of the BPO culture even if you don't work for one.

This is the Gen Next, as many have termed it to be. I would like to mention that the guy who was bargaining with another offer in hand would have jumped ship in a few months for a few rupees more. What use is hiring such bargainers who don't have any idea about the future? They don't know that this jumping around will have a terrible effect as they grow older and will have a hard time finding a good job in a senior position.

A couple of times I have also allowed emotional influences when hiring personnel. I am lucky that the candidates recruited on this basis have performed and stuck with the company.

One time very recently, I had to let go of a candidate who fits the bill perfectly but was bargaining with me, holding another offer in hand. We all work under tremendous pressure when it comes to hiring, but we cannot allow the candidates to bargain beyond limits. The threat of another offer letter is not always good to use.

With respect to Karen's posting, I would like to know, how do you know the candidates we interact with for a few hours are the best? Do all the psychometric tests provide perfect candidates? Judgement based on all factors, which also includes emotional factors, is the best bet I have found in hiring. It has worked out well for me, and I prefer to stick to it. I request you not to lose sleep over this issue. You did the perfect job. You always need to recruit the needy, not the greedy!

Regards,

Praveen

Respected Senior (Praveen),

Thank you very much for your comments. You have rightly pointed out that the culture in a BPO is very different from any other company. They come to work at night; some of them dress like hippies, and they have a very casual attitude towards life. Most of them are between the age bracket of 18-24. I enjoyed working in a BPO because you get a chance to work with a young and vibrant crowd who are still not aware of the corporate culture, and most of them are childish and innocent.

But at the end of the day, they need to perform. They all have very strict sales targets to achieve, and believe me, the pressure is tremendous; hence, the attrition rate is very high. Moreover, training is required for anyone and everyone who is going to interact with customers, so the management used to put a great deal of emphasis on selecting a candidate who will stick around at least for a year. For entry-level candidates, I seriously doubt how a "psychometric test" is going to help because most of them don't know what they want from life; they are working just for the sake of it.

Honestly speaking, I found your views to be one of the best among all the views I have read on this topic.

Keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,

Indrani Chakraborty

Right Indu,

I totally correspond with your thoughts. That is why I said that you have been fortunate enough in this case to have found a justifiable candidate. Sometimes, it's our intuition that works. Eventually, we have to keep our minds open as "Mind is like a parachute which works best when it is open"! So, you have made a wise decision after evaluating all 'ifs and buts'.

Keep up the good work.. :)

Shipra

Dear Ms. Indu,

As an HR professional, it is imperative for us to understand that we provide opportunities not for the best talent, but for the talent that is most moldable and for persons who are ready to learn. In the case stated above, it was money that was the driving factor for the individual, but he was also willing to learn. If one looks at the consequences of selecting the candidate, he turned out to be an outperformer. If you had hired the guy with good communication skills, you would have ended up with only a good performer.

In fact, it is an admirable fact that you followed your intuition and hired the right candidate. Strong intuition about the right candidates always reduces chances of making errors.

So I guess you have one more of the many replies you have already received. But I hope it shall be useful in further clarifying your dilemma.

Regards,
Avinash V Rao
Udai Pareek HR LABS.

No, you have done the right thing. Anybody with a heart will say the same. You have done justice to society.

Hi,

I don't think that you have done an injustice to the candidate with good communication skills. In the case of the other candidate, though he didn't have the required skills for the post, he had a consistently good academic background. So, you have taken into consideration his merit. Because of his consistent performance in school/college, you judged him as a persevering person. So, you have taken his merit into consideration, though emotions seemed to influence your decision. Being needy is secondary. Just because he is needy, one cannot make an offer. He being a consistent performer and you being an HR person who believes in the strength of human potential and its development, I feel you did something right.

The other person already had a more attractive offer. Being a person with the required skills, he would get better offers and would definitely negotiate. Such people may not even stay with you for years. In a BPO industry where attrition is high, by giving chances to such consistent performers, it will definitely lead to better performance, and you will be able to retain them in the long run.

As most of them have mentioned, emotions should not override when making a decision.

Rakhee

Hi,

No, I don't think that you made an injustice to that person. In fact, from my side, your decision was correct. So don't worry related to this. Be happy like this always when you are right. OK 😄

Regards,
Rujval Bhatt

Dear Indhu,

Don't let emotions interfere with your professional responsibilities. Remember, we are not running a charity here. I do agree that helping the needy is important, but when you have the resources, seize the opportunity.

You can assist the person in need by referring them to other job opportunities or by considering them for any available positions in your organization.

Regards,
Madhu

Respected Senior (Avinash),

Thank you very much for your comments. I might have received a lot of replies, but I am taken aback to see "Uday Pareek" at the end of your signature. I treat the book on Human Resource Management by T.V Rao and Uday Pareek as my bible. Although, unfortunately, I have just relocated a few months back and by mistake, I have left it at home. I miss that book a lot. If you personally know any of these authors, then please convey my best regards to them and tell them to add my name to the list of their biggest fan following.

Best Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Dear Indrani,

I think you did justice fairly well to the needy person because your selection did not harm the organization despite his poor communication skills. On the other hand, he performed outstandingly with his polished skills, and his job supported his family as well.

An HR professional should be like this, one whose commitments must accomplish professional as well as social responsibilities.

All the best,

With Regards,

Om Prakash

Hi Indrani,

You made a wise decision as:

1) Usually, the person who is willing to work on his/her weaknesses ensures that he/she keeps the learning process ongoing. Nowadays, what an organization needs is an employee who is open to learning more than one who is a 'know-all' simply because the business environment is changing, and it is necessary to change the internal business processes accordingly. The employees have to continuously be flexible to adapt to new technology/policies, etc.

2) The other person you mentioned is the one who has the requisite skills, but there is a possibility that he might not accept the offer, and hence your recruitment effort could go in vain. Again, you cannot ensure his retention for long. Who knows, he might be negotiating with one more company based on your offer even before coming on board?

I hope this helps you to know that your decision was right.

Regards,
Priyanka Upasani

Hi Indu,

To start with the recruitment process, one should have the job profile which contains the soft skills and technical skills that are very important, as you mentioned, such as "communication skills." Therefore, we cannot overlook this factor in the current situation; instead, we should not base our candidate selection solely on emotions.

Another consideration is that in your type of company, there is no time to provide such training or conduct assessments for it while also managing regular employment.

With Regards,
Rahul

Hi Indu,

Even I think, in this case, you have found a quality candidate. As he has scored good marks, he was also very zealous for the job. But before selecting him, you must have seen his zeal towards the job, learning ability, and knowledge; only then have you selected him, not based solely on his need for the job.

We always have to keep in mind that we are looking to recruit a productive individual who can provide maximum output to the organization. So, go ahead with such a decision.

Hi Indu,

This incident has two faces, as you have already mentioned. Ideally, I stick to Akhilesh's call of recruiting the person based on abilities and suitability to the requirement. This is due to the fact that every company assigns responsibilities based on trust, and if employees get carried away by emotions, it might send the wrong message. This issue might hit the wrong chord, especially in the HR sector.

Personally, I appreciate your decision, but professionally, I would not agree to that. This is an awesome topic, as all of us are caught in the conflict between humanity and career orientation within us.

TnR,
Vish
(virgovish@gmail.com)

Dear Indrani,

I think you have done a better job in this regard. There is no wrong in providing a job to a person who is in need rather than to a job hopper. Since we are humans and are bound by the fact that emotions often play a vital role in our daily lives, which we can't avoid. However, what we can do is control our emotions at that particular point in time when we have to stand as organizational employees and make decisions in the best possible manner that benefits the organization in the long run.

Regards,
Pavan

Hi Ankita,

Thank you for your comments. You have rightly pointed out that "numbers" are the keyword to success in the call center industry, and that way the guy has proved his worth. Keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,
Indranio Chakraborty

Hi Vish,

Thank you for your comments. I must say one thing: as an HR professional, I am not comfortable recruiting a job hopper in an industry where the attrition rate is at its maximum just because of their good communication skills. As I mentioned before in this post, good communication skills are the foundation upon which we can train a person. This can also be done with someone who has average skills, but at least we are confident that given an opportunity, this person will be loyal to the company (a gut feeling shared by management and myself).

I believe Human Resource Management is not always about 2 + 2 = 4, or in other words, there was no certainty that if I had hired that job hopper, they would have outperformed. It was even doubtful whether they would have accepted the offer; although I did extend it, they reluctantly said "yes." It would have been worse if they had taken the training and then left the organization. In that scenario, I would have faced consequences from management because they always stress the importance of recruiting resources willing to stay for at least a year, considering the 1.5 months we invest in their training. I never let my emotions cloud my judgment when considering these possibilities, but emotions were inevitably a part of this decision since I am an HR professional, not a robot.

I respect your viewpoints as well, so please keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,

Indrani Chakraborty

Dear Indu,

Remember the basics of HR- Recruitment; you cannot get carried away with your emotions. You have mentioned two candidates; let¡¦s read each person one after other.

1st one Average communication skills, good academic record, zeal to work, poor economical background ect. I believe that you might have few more questions to him to know following details.

Know more about his attitude (if he can work in team, hard working ect)

His ability to learn (is he a quick learner)

What are his expectations from org and his goal?

Why does he want to join this organization?

Let me assume he is good in every aspect and you have to decide whether to recruit this person based on the communication skills, at this point also don¡¦t be emotional, Just think based on statistics you have. My company gives 30/45 days of training. Is this time enough for him to get up to the mark? Yes/No

But hold on, I am not done yet, you should remember one point: a needy person has more needs to be fulfilled¡K So my question is will he stick to the company for long? well you need to decide this based on other answers like his goal, attitude and all.

2nd Person :oops: He holds an offer letter already, so he has every right to demand the pay¡K in this case I would try and see¡K

Why is he looking for a change? (Most important question)

What is his track record? (You have to look how may companies he has changes and also go for ref check)

What can he bring to the organization?

And I grill the person like anything asking him all sort of questions. now what you have to decide is if he will stick to the company, for this also we can look for his previous track record to know if he is a job hopper, try and know more about the working culture of his previous company ect.

But you said¡Kthis person was reluctant to answer, then I would say he has poor attitude and I shall not recruit him

And if everything goes fine and I find good ROI on this candidate I shall recruit him

There is nothing wrong in paying more to a good and deserving candidate

Lastly, there is nothing called justice/injustice in Recruitment, its all about ROI (return on investment)

Cheers and have fun :lol:

Hi Indrani,

Your decision was all an emotional one (if we see it in a broader sense), but if we try to delve deeper into your thoughts that were going on in your mind, they were well justified in the organization's favor. You took the right decision. Hiring someone with a desire to learn (whatever the reason may be) and someone who is needy is always better than hiring someone who excels in communication skills and also has a job as a backup.

When talking about a BPO, where the attrition problem is very high, there you can trust the needy person to be more trustworthy towards the organization. You can always expect him to stay for a longer time than you can expect the second guy. So, that's good. It might have taken a long time for the trainer to make him well-versed in his work. But that time spent is worth it.

Chal. Hopefully, I'm right in my understanding.

Sunny

Phone: 9960234355

Email: sunny_urs@rediffmail.com

Dear Indu,

I myself feel what you have done is correct with my experiences of recruitment for a stockbroking firm. At a skeletal view of the case, the one with good communication skills, as you said, already has a job offer in hand and opted for a better package, which means he is already on some platform, trying for good opportunities as per his side, and I think he is correct. Everyone has the right to better perks, but as for our HR inner thoughts, he may not stay for long; sooner or later, he may opt for another offer where he gets better pay. Therefore, what you have done is correct by giving the job to one who has fewer skills. Definitely, he will strive for success and may stay for at least two years until he feels secure. Isn't it?

Hope you agree with me.

Regards,
Yandamuri

Hello everybody,

Sorry for responding a little late, but I was tied up in other things for the past few weeks. I read the entire exchange of messages with interest. Most of us seem to agree that what was done was the right thing. The question raised by a few appears to be whether the 'right thing' was done for a 'wrong reason'.

And that's where I differ. I seem to come up with 2 reasons why. Firstly, the 'Human' aspect of HR, particularly in an organizational setting, is the primary and sole responsibility of HR pros. So, taking the 'humane' perspective, I say that the decision taken was justified. Secondly, it is an established fact that 'hunger' is an excellent motivator. I have seen similar incidents where the more 'needy' person, on recruitment, turns out to be excellent in delivering.

Just my thoughts....

Regards,
VAMSI

Hi Vamsi,

Thank you for your comments. "Better late than never" :) . You have a refreshing approach towards solving this dilemma, I must say. I wish I could get such wonderful opinions before I actually took this decision. Keep posting.

Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty

Hi Indu,

Reading this whole debate, I felt it was right on your part to identify the good candidate and also the one who can be an asset for the company. Candidates who are only after money will join and leave the organization as they find another opportunity. It's not just a matter of helping the needy but also acting prudently in such a situation, keeping the company's growth and requirements in mind.

Yes, not to the candidate but to your company, to some extent. Being an HR professional, you should be unbiased about the background of the candidate and provide the best for your company.

Hi Indrani,

I feel even professionally your decision was correct not only emotionally because the poor guy had a motivation to perform on the job, to earn money for his family needs. On the other hand, Mr. already-got-an-offer would have again looked for an opportunity to ditch you and go for someone paying more than you. If I am not wrong and the tale is not too old, your chosen guy must still be there working and thanking you for generosity, whereas the truth is you only gained from the situation.

Regards,
Poonam