Topic for Debate: Why HR Prefers to Live in a World of Pretensions?

Dear all,

While training job aspirants for the job interview, it is told to them that if HR or any other senior authority asks a question, "why do you want to leave your current company?" then they should not tell the real answer. It is taught to them that they should pretend that they are okay in their job; however, they are quitting to pursue a better opportunity and to handle the challenges of the higher order. They are told that this type of reply shows the candidate's positive thinking.

It is common knowledge that many times people quit their jobs out of sheer frustration. They could be frustrated because of overwork, bullying by the seniors, unreasonable targets, politicking at the workplace, marginalization because of caste, creed, religion, etc., groupism, underpayment, unjustified work their stature, and so on. However, HR prefers that the real reason be kept under wraps.

Against this backdrop, the question arises: why does HR prefer false replies to the truth? Is telling lies part of positive thinking? Why is telling the truth considered negative thinking?

Can HR/Training professionals put forth their views?

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Mr. Dinesh Divekar,

Yes, it is true. Candidates who had issues with their past employer themselves are not willing to share the same with prospective employers for reasons:

1) Probability of getting hired by the new employer will become remote.
2) To avoid a negative image.

On the other hand, even if they share the real reason with the HR:

1) They are viewed as trouble creators, even if they are technically sound and good at work.
2) HR will not consider their application since there might be a presence of similar work patterns in their organization (like extended work hours/unrealistic work targets).
3) They are considered as not good team players.
4) HR foresees that they may create issues within their organization as well.

Above all, the primary reason is the new HR doesn't have time to investigate whether the issues shared by the candidate are genuine. The real problem lies with the candidate or if it is related to colleagues/supervisors of his past employer.

Dear Mr. V.M. Lakshminarayanan,

You have provided a response to my post but have not addressed my questions. Why does HR prefer to live in a world of pretensions? Why are lies accepted over the truth? Is this a weakness on the part of HR, or is it that HR has yet to grasp the concept of "positive thinking"?

Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar

Dear Mr. Dinesh Divekar,

Certainly, it is not a weakness. Decisions of an HR Manager are situation-based and will vary from time to time, case to case, and organization to organization. I personally feel that we cannot confine all HR under one umbrella as the thought process of individuals will differ.

Dear Colleagues,

The poster of this question should have clarified the nature and scope of this poser. Does he mean by 'Pretensions' only during the tenure of his service in a company or only at the time of citing reasons for quitting the job? Does he mean all HR persons are pretentious as a matter of habit in their approach to their job responsibilities? I am raising a counter question as to who does not act pretentious on occasions for purely selfish gains? Why only HR is singled out? While so-called top leaders in the field of Religion, Science, and Technology, Judiciary, Education, Politics, and in every walk of life are found deeply immersed in pretensions every now and then, to single out the HR profession is unjustified. All those who indulge in pretensions and gain advantages at the cost of others deserve to be condemned, including HR.

Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR Consultant

Dear Mr. Vinayak Nagarkar,

My post is self-explanatory; hence, I do not deem it necessary to provide any further explanation. My point is limited to the replies given by the interviewees during job interviews. They are often advised not to disclose the real reasons for leaving their previous jobs as HR might perceive it as negative thinking on the part of the job candidate.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Let me start with the caveat that I am not holding a brief for HR, or for that matter, any other profession. Having made that clear, I find the title of the debate itself is rather pretentious, if not facetious. The narrative below proceeds on the following fundamental assumptions:
1. The HR is guilty of deliberately misguiding the job aspirants to lie to get a job.
2. The interviewer is gullible enough to be led up the garden path.
3. The interviewee is an unwary victim who deserves our sympathy.
Let me now give my take on the above in seriatim:
1. A sweeping assumption that an HR professional is by instinct dishonest is unwarranted in the absence of any empirical evidence to support this view. It is possible that some people may have anecdotal experiences to the contrary or there are those HR professionals who may be indulging in such practices. To paint the entire profession with such a broad brush is at best a travesty. There could be exceptions just as there are exceptions in every professional field.
2. An experienced HR professional trains the job aspirants to respect the interviewer and his credentials. It is a common refrain of an HR guy in every coaching exercise of job aspirants to be honest and, more importantly not to fib. Of course, there could be exceptions; but they are just that – exceptions. A man does not become an HR professional merely because of his designation.
3. End of the day an interview is all about the interviewee and his capabilities including his value systems. Among one of the virtues that is expected of a job aspirant is his ability to express himself not only fluently but also in a civilised manner. That calls for some diplomacy, restraint and a degree of decency with which he talks about his previous employer and his previous boss. Someone who does not care for these niceties may not be a good employee to start with. That is a lesson in decency and not necessarily an exercise in concealing truth.
Finally, a candidate must be honest in his views and about his past. A wrong choice of person for a particular job may not only affect the employer but the employee himself. The candidate in an interview should be able to separate the issue from the person even while commenting on his previous employers. It is fallacious to say that the HR tutors the job aspirant to lie. But in the name of truth a candidate also is not allowed to carry his dirty linen from his previous job to someone else’ board room. It is an HR man’s duty to preempt that.
The Defense rests.