Is HR Responsible For Non Performance On Floor With BPO

Hey friends, my question is to what extent HR (recruitment) is responsible for non-performance on the floor with BPO. Recruitment is done with all quality criteria kept prior most, then the batch is forwarded to training. Should I accept the blame for non-performance, and to what extent?

Dear Aichaa,

Who is involved in the recruitment process in your company? Is it only the recruitment wing of HR, or does some Ops Manager also interview the job candidate?

In the recruitment process of many companies, HR is the first filter. Tossing the right candidates for the interview of the Ops Manager is the job of the recruitment department. Now in your case, there is room to believe that not just the recruitment wing but the Ops Manager has also failed in the selection of the right candidate.

Having said that, let me go further. In many companies, it is the KRA of the recruitment department "Number of Newly Joined Employees Left/Removed within or after the Probation Period." While calculating the KRA score, total recruitments are taken into account in the given period. It could be a quarter or half-year depending on the volume of the recruitment in the company.

Companies assign this KRA to the recruitment department because wrong recruitment incurs a huge exchequer to the company. The objective of this KRA is to plug this invisible cost. Now, what percent of faulty recruitment is acceptable and what percent is not acceptable is a moot point. The reply will differ from one company to another and one industry to another.

Problems of this kind arise because either competencies of the position are not identified or if these were identified, then competency-based tests or questions were not asked in the interview. Have you trained the staff involved in the recruitment on "Behavioral Interviewing" (BI) or "Competency-Based Interviewing" (CBI)? In BI or CBI, chances of faulty recruitment are minimized in a big way. I conduct training on this topic. Please approach me if you wish to train your staff.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Dear friend,

HR will not be held responsible for the non-performance of an employee. You are responsible for selecting the right candidate, and it is essential to involve officials from the respective department in the selection process to ensure a suitable employee is chosen (not just the right employee). Training and other related aspects are interconnected for the process to be successful. When the employee is put to work, any performance issues that arise after a certain period are not the responsibility of HR. Blame is a result of inefficiency.

Dear Gopinath,

If you firmly put your foot down for HR being not responsible, then what is the accountability of the recruitment department? Recruitment is nothing but searching a needle in the haystack. What is the use of the recruitment department if it is discovered at a later stage that they had provided a sack needle instead of a ballpoint needle? The essence of recruitment lies in the timely discovery of the product.

Yes, 100% perfect recruitment may not be feasible; nevertheless, as written in my earlier post, what leeway to be provided could have divergent views.

If not HR, then who will be responsible for the cost of poor recruitment? You need to assign this cost to some department. The trouble with many companies in India is that the cost of poor recruitment is not measured at all. Since this cost is not measured, neither managers are sensitized to this cost. But then this is what real cost-consciousness is. Controlling this cost is a real need of training.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar
+91-9900155394

Dear Dinesh Divekar,

I am truly moved by your words. It is a collective responsibility, not specific. I hope you agree.

Recruitment is a process that does not provide a foolproof, compatible version of everything. The question here is about non-performance and who is responsible for the failure. This squarely rests with the employee for their failure. As an HR professional, one cannot micromanage every aspect of work. If, on one hand, the employee is a non-performer, on the other hand, they may be quite competent in another role. In such cases, the role of HR comes into question because the specified job completion is not achieved. HR is a process of evolution, not a judge of competency. Each job and its criteria require various skills, and no one is entirely capable of evaluating them within a short period. Therefore, whether HR is suitable for the role and the work itself is a question. The process involves calculations, assessing skills, enhancing job performance, accountability, trust, and more.

In government jobs, after thorough scrutiny, instances of bribery at higher levels raise concerns about the recruitment process. The responsibility lies with the recruitment cell and HR to establish a better process for hiring employees and maximizing their contributions effectively.

What constitutes poor recruitment and cost? Are you worried about HR salaries or training expenses? In both cases, if HR performance is lacking, the organization that employed them bears the failure in the process. Consequently, the organization as a whole faces challenges in coordination.

Collective responsibility is crucial, far exceeding individual roles. I am simplifying the issue.

Best of luck.

Dear Friend,

I feel both HR and the Technical department are equally responsible for selecting the wrong person during interviews. HR has to conduct a preliminary interview to assess the candidates' attitude, qualifications, experience, background check, general knowledge, and aptitude, among other factors. Simultaneously, observing the body language and manners of an individual can also help HR determine whether a particular person is suitable for a specific position. If HR is satisfied, they should refer such candidates to the technical round of interviews. If the HR and Technical interviews are conducted on different dates or at different times, this is my opinion only, and you may correct any mistakes or misunderstandings in it.

Regards,

Dear all,

This is a very good help from all of you. I have gone through the entire discussion and have come to a conclusion that to some extent, even I am responsible for non-performance. The idea of getting someone from operations involved in final recruitment sounds good. However, this is a BPO industry where hiring is 24/7/365 days with very high attrition rates. To follow many rounds of interviews sometimes seems not possible due to a constant demand for manpower on the floor. I have come to a conclusion that for some time, I should bring the hiring on hold and check for the reasons for non-performance on the floor.

I would really appreciate it if Mr. Dinesh could highlight more on KRA. How much should be the ratio at regular intervals of time to prove minimum or zero faulty recruitment? Also, if you could give me an idea of how I can get access to getting myself trained for BI and CBI.

Thank you.

Dear Aichaa,

Non-performance on the BPO floor or shop floor of a factory can result from various factors. Some of the issues that may lead to this include the following in relation to the recruitment of newly joined employees:

a) Selection of culturally misfit candidates

b) Job competencies not identified

c) Lack of proper training and supporting infrastructure

d) Inadequate support from managers, with managers remaining indifferent to the needs of new employees

e) Poor treatment of staff, with managers lacking interpersonal skills

f) Unclear career paths

g) Monotony in work and long working hours without valid reasons

From the organization or HR's perspective, the following failures can contribute to non-performance:

h) Failure to calculate the cost of poor recruitment, leading to a lack of awareness among managers

i) Lack of involvement of operational staff in the recruitment process

j) Absence of manpower attrition analysis, resulting in no learning from past recruitment mistakes

k) Staff involved in recruitment not trained in Behavioral Interviewing

l) Inability to attract quality candidates due to a lack of brand appeal and no effort from top management to enhance the organization's brand in the job market

m) Disregard for fundamental management principles and a detached view of the industry as being different

n) Absence of a labor union, which could provide a platform for employee grievances and bridge the gap between top management and ground staff

o) Lack of a formal mentoring program

p) Absence of a clear organizational philosophy and value-centric administration, leading to decisions conflicting with the organization's vision and mission statement

While not all of the above reasons may apply to your situation, some are likely relevant.

Regarding your question about training in Behavioral Interviewing, I have been conducting training on this topic for over a decade. You can find my latest response on the subject here: https://www.citehr.com/511143-compet...kills-cbi.html

Thank you,

Dinesh Divekar

Dear Aichaa,

In the BPO sector, hiring is not handled by HR individually. HR conducts the initial screening, then a trainer has to test his/her technical skills and other aspects that vary from company to company. After selection, they will go through training first. This reduces the involvement of HR in cases of non-performance. The trainer will train them, and once ready, they will hit the floor. The work of the Operations team then begins as they have to control and manage the individuals on the floor. Non-performing individuals should undergo re-certification.

This approach can also help in controlling the attrition rate. Therefore, start involving trainers/QA/Ops Managers in interviews. Take their signatures on the CVs of the candidates shortlisted by them. This will instill a sense of responsibility among them, leading to training and guidance for underperforming employees instead of letting them go.

Thank you.

True Lavika, this was a really good suggestion. I have already planned a new recruitment criteria as such. Thank you, Mr. Dinesh, for this wonderful insight you've given.

Agree with Latika.

Hiring is a multi-department process. Have an interview form where every interviewee has to write their feedback and recommendation on whether to hire, reject, or hold. "Hold" is when they want to see more candidates; hence, "hold" is also in line with shortlisted candidates. Signing the interview form makes them serious about the process, and they are extra careful while making recommendations. Having said that, hiring the best fit is not easy as we are all human and may make mistakes. Therefore, solid recruiting procedures can eventually reduce the chances of failure in the recruitment process. It is a must to have policies in place.

Dear Madam,

I think it would benefit greatly if effort is made in finding out what went wrong rather than who was wrong. Revisit the processes right from job specifications, screening, interviewing, selection, induction, on-the-job training, communication of performance criteria, and analysis of reasons for non-performance. Let HR and the line personnel bring their wisdom to the table and suggest corrective measures rather than getting bogged down with the blame game or a passing-the-buck mindset.

Regards,

Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant

In BPOs, the attrition rate is usually high, and the workload is heavy. Additionally, the policies are not very strong and stringent, which can lead to incorrect hires and the possibility of failure at the training and induction levels. This situation may occur if there is no established system for recruitment, selection, training, and induction. Following this, performance becomes crucial. Continuously monitoring performance and providing training throughout employment will help us track performance and improvements made by the employees.

In BPOs, achieving this may not have been possible due to various reasons. As Dinesh Diverkarji correctly suggested, the entire process requires a review and a more systematic approach. It's important to note that it is not about blaming individuals; rather, it is a collective team responsibility for everyone to work towards a common goal of profitability.