Hi all,
I would like to ask the HR personnel - Does an HR abide by all the rules and principles for the very same reason that he/she rejects a candidate during an interview? For example, if an HR rejects a candidate because he/she has frequent job hops, is it fair on the part of HR to do the same; i.e. keep switching jobs?
ASHLESHA
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
24I would like to ask the HR personnel - Does an HR abide by all the rules and principles for the very same reason that he/she rejects a candidate during an interview? For example, if an HR rejects a candidate because he/she has frequent job hops, is it fair on the part of HR to do the same; i.e. keep switching jobs?
ASHLESHA
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings,
Extremely interesting point. I can barely wait to read others' responses to this. Here's my experience and learning. I have attended interviews in an organization where the interviewer's role, i.e., BU HR Head, remained the same, but the person in that role changed thrice. Each time I was called to meet the BU Head HR, I found someone new. I was rejected by them in all three interviews as I lacked stability!
I am connected to them through social networking sites that announce updates when they change jobs. Each time they declare their career progression, I congratulate them.
I completely understand that few terminologies are used rather overused to declare the results of the interview. The judgment often remains subjective rather than objective, I believe!
I am waiting to hear the experiences and learning from other members.
Regards, (Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Extremely interesting point. I can barely wait to read others' responses to this. Here's my experience and learning. I have attended interviews in an organization where the interviewer's role, i.e., BU HR Head, remained the same, but the person in that role changed thrice. Each time I was called to meet the BU Head HR, I found someone new. I was rejected by them in all three interviews as I lacked stability!
I am connected to them through social networking sites that announce updates when they change jobs. Each time they declare their career progression, I congratulate them.
I completely understand that few terminologies are used rather overused to declare the results of the interview. The judgment often remains subjective rather than objective, I believe!
I am waiting to hear the experiences and learning from other members.
Regards, (Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Ashlesha,
Very good and right spade on the head question. Whenever HR wants to change, they do so as per their wish because the organization needs someone to do all clerical work. In the absence of HR, the managers and other departments need to step in, so they urgently fill the position. If one day the CEO is absent, the next day papers can be signed. However, if the office boy is absent, no one will get coffee that day. Other employees hold high-level jobs that are more important than HR, so it's essential to check their job-hopping tendencies.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Very good and right spade on the head question. Whenever HR wants to change, they do so as per their wish because the organization needs someone to do all clerical work. In the absence of HR, the managers and other departments need to step in, so they urgently fill the position. If one day the CEO is absent, the next day papers can be signed. However, if the office boy is absent, no one will get coffee that day. Other employees hold high-level jobs that are more important than HR, so it's essential to check their job-hopping tendencies.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings,
Please help us focus on a point and not blow it out of proportion. Let's stand apart from the generalizations and offer solutions to specific situations. Brainstorming is not only about pointing fingers but also about raking it enough to end up with an understanding, not an absence of it.
I look forward to being enlightened through the collective understanding from the discussion in this thread.
Regards, (Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please help us focus on a point and not blow it out of proportion. Let's stand apart from the generalizations and offer solutions to specific situations. Brainstorming is not only about pointing fingers but also about raking it enough to end up with an understanding, not an absence of it.
I look forward to being enlightened through the collective understanding from the discussion in this thread.
Regards, (Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
This is also applicable to HR personnel. My personal experience: I joined a new organization in the month of November 2010, and my previous organization is asking me to rejoin again. However, I told them I can do so, but after one year, as this will affect my career growth in the future. Every organization has some expectations from us as they provide us with bread and butter, so we need to think about them as human beings.
I have deviated from the main topic, but it could be correlated.
Regards,
Shaikh
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
This is also applicable to HR personnel. My personal experience: I joined a new organization in the month of November 2010, and my previous organization is asking me to rejoin again. However, I told them I can do so, but after one year, as this will affect my career growth in the future. Every organization has some expectations from us as they provide us with bread and butter, so we need to think about them as human beings.
I have deviated from the main topic, but it could be correlated.
Regards,
Shaikh
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Hello,
Sorry, nothing is so queer, and the behavior of HR is NOT suspect or dishonest.
As a recruiter, HR is expected to act in conformity with the organization's policy, disregarding personal preferences and/or compulsions. Also, why are expectations made from HR different from those of other employees? All are human beings with individual failings, preferences, and objectives. HR is part of this larger reality.
If HR is giving priority to the "role expectations" disregarding his/her personal choices, I would applaud such HR. If the same HR behaves differently in matters of his/her personal/professional choices, it is an individual decision. It is good if it works in his/her favor, and if it doesn't, he/she will pay a "price" and will have no room for complaint! We are responsible for our thoughts and actions and enjoy or suffer depending on the consequences of our choices. But when we are bound by "role expectations" imposed by the organization and ACCEPTED by us, we must first fulfill the role expectations.
Perhaps morally, the HR could be faulted for applying different norms for himself and for others, but to the extent the HR is upholding role expectations despite personal conduct/preferences, it would be unfair to even allege duplicity of thought or action!
Regards,
Samvedan
April 28, 2011
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sorry, nothing is so queer, and the behavior of HR is NOT suspect or dishonest.
As a recruiter, HR is expected to act in conformity with the organization's policy, disregarding personal preferences and/or compulsions. Also, why are expectations made from HR different from those of other employees? All are human beings with individual failings, preferences, and objectives. HR is part of this larger reality.
If HR is giving priority to the "role expectations" disregarding his/her personal choices, I would applaud such HR. If the same HR behaves differently in matters of his/her personal/professional choices, it is an individual decision. It is good if it works in his/her favor, and if it doesn't, he/she will pay a "price" and will have no room for complaint! We are responsible for our thoughts and actions and enjoy or suffer depending on the consequences of our choices. But when we are bound by "role expectations" imposed by the organization and ACCEPTED by us, we must first fulfill the role expectations.
Perhaps morally, the HR could be faulted for applying different norms for himself and for others, but to the extent the HR is upholding role expectations despite personal conduct/preferences, it would be unfair to even allege duplicity of thought or action!
Regards,
Samvedan
April 28, 2011
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have seen many cases wherein if an HR switches jobs frequently, it is seen as a genuine reason. However, when the same person is hiring for a specific position, they filter out candidates with too many job changes.
Besides, every job is important to every person. We cannot differentiate that high-level jobs are more important than HR roles. An HR professional can also perform administrative work. It is up to the individual to determine how they view their role. The HR professional should be able to convince themselves first and then others.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Besides, every job is important to every person. We cannot differentiate that high-level jobs are more important than HR roles. An HR professional can also perform administrative work. It is up to the individual to determine how they view their role. The HR professional should be able to convince themselves first and then others.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Ashlesha,
Genuine concern! Very nicely answered by Mr. Samvedan. I agree with his point of view. When an HR person changes jobs frequently, that's his/her individual decision. But when they reject someone else for the same reason, as they are the representatives of an organization, the decision can differ.
It is also true that HR professionals are role models for many in companies, especially in these areas, so they should not practice what they cannot preach. Also, the frequency of changing jobs depends on different roles. For example, routine jobs create monotony, so people change such jobs frequently (I have seen that recruitment is one such area). On the other hand, there are some jobs where stability is indeed required, such as people working on projects or handling some specific key roles.
Hence, what may be frequent for you may not be for me. Our individual perceptions differ, and so do our decisions. :)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Genuine concern! Very nicely answered by Mr. Samvedan. I agree with his point of view. When an HR person changes jobs frequently, that's his/her individual decision. But when they reject someone else for the same reason, as they are the representatives of an organization, the decision can differ.
It is also true that HR professionals are role models for many in companies, especially in these areas, so they should not practice what they cannot preach. Also, the frequency of changing jobs depends on different roles. For example, routine jobs create monotony, so people change such jobs frequently (I have seen that recruitment is one such area). On the other hand, there are some jobs where stability is indeed required, such as people working on projects or handling some specific key roles.
Hence, what may be frequent for you may not be for me. Our individual perceptions differ, and so do our decisions. :)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No one really posted their own experience wherein they had a job change very planned after a period of time or are job hoppers. All only posted replies which really do not solve the query. Archana also meant to say that the HR role is monotonous (in the recruitment field), so job hopping in HR is accepted? I don't think this makes sense. Maybe some HR professionals should really mention while changing jobs whether they were selfish or truly followed the HR religion.
Best I can correlate is policemen driving in the wrong way/one way and not wearing helmets themselves, but at the same time catching offenders and fining them. What can be said about this? Have a nice day, friends.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Best I can correlate is policemen driving in the wrong way/one way and not wearing helmets themselves, but at the same time catching offenders and fining them. What can be said about this? Have a nice day, friends.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Here, I would like to say one thing: whoever is employed in one place in their early 20s and retires from the same place cannot be considered a talented professional. One or two job changes in a decade are acceptable as they can enhance lifestyle status and knowledge. However, the issue arises with job-hoppers, especially those who switch between two or three companies within one or two years.
Job changes made for one's betterment will be acknowledged as a display of talent. In fact, job changes should be seen as a positive sign of healthy development and growth, both for the company and the employees.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Job changes made for one's betterment will be acknowledged as a display of talent. In fact, job changes should be seen as a positive sign of healthy development and growth, both for the company and the employees.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Speaking about experiences, I have references in HR who have changed jobs too often. Now, hear in this post what I have questioned as Job Hoppers are real hoppers who change after 6-8 months to 1 year. The sole reason for their explanation is either "cannot see growth for self in the company" OR "looking for CMMI level company" OR "looking for better prospects/opportunities/technologies" OR "not wanting to do recruitment." Such people have 2 years of experience and 3-4 job changes. I am sure everybody will treat these as Job Hoppers.
I would like to question:
1) How do they decide for themselves that they do not see growth within 6 months?
2) Why did they join if it is not a CMMI level company?
3) Do you expect a salary hike after 6-8 months of joining?
4) Did you join just for the sake of getting a job? Why didn't you do some research on recruiters before becoming a recruiter?
Now, these reasons for job hops are not limited only to HR's, but I will still keep it to them as my post states HR job hops.
I don't disagree that recruitment is monotonous. I have been into recruitment for 2 years myself. It is monotonous, but I have found a way to take it differently and make it interesting.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I would like to question:
1) How do they decide for themselves that they do not see growth within 6 months?
2) Why did they join if it is not a CMMI level company?
3) Do you expect a salary hike after 6-8 months of joining?
4) Did you join just for the sake of getting a job? Why didn't you do some research on recruiters before becoming a recruiter?
Now, these reasons for job hops are not limited only to HR's, but I will still keep it to them as my post states HR job hops.
I don't disagree that recruitment is monotonous. I have been into recruitment for 2 years myself. It is monotonous, but I have found a way to take it differently and make it interesting.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
May I have your attention, please? I would like to raise a query related to this thread. Perhaps you can help me expand my knowledge base. I always think in a unique way as I love this process and am habitual to it.
It's a very interesting thread. Let me make it even more interesting.
PART 1
IT FIRMS (HR) have tried their best to recruit (PULL) candidates in very short notice periods to deliver their projects on time. At times, employers have even paid applicants notice period pay without considering:
1) What the scenario would be in that organization when pulling/dragging/compelling employees purely for the company's requirement by bribing them with more pay but not recognizing their talent.
2) What the impact on an employee's career would be.
"In this scenario, who is the committed employee here - the HR manager or the employee?"
I am sure everyone is aware of the IT INDUSTRY's RECRUITMENT/PAY NORMS and how CONSULTANTS, including HR, try to recruit EMPLOYEES.
PART 2
Now, imagine when the same candidate has applied for an ABC FIRM requirement. Even though he is qualified/experienced, if the HR rejects him just because he is a job hopper, what do we have to say now?
JOB HOPPER! Let's define this word and its associated factors before targeting HR MANAGERS and EMPLOYEES (JOB HOPPERS).
"The COLD WAR is between HR MANAGER & JOB HOPPERS. Let's enjoy by sharing our knowledge through BRAIN STORMING."
I am expecting HONEST REPLIES from all those members who have actively participated in this thread.
Good luck to you all.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
May I have your attention, please? I would like to raise a query related to this thread. Perhaps you can help me expand my knowledge base. I always think in a unique way as I love this process and am habitual to it.
It's a very interesting thread. Let me make it even more interesting.
PART 1
IT FIRMS (HR) have tried their best to recruit (PULL) candidates in very short notice periods to deliver their projects on time. At times, employers have even paid applicants notice period pay without considering:
1) What the scenario would be in that organization when pulling/dragging/compelling employees purely for the company's requirement by bribing them with more pay but not recognizing their talent.
2) What the impact on an employee's career would be.
"In this scenario, who is the committed employee here - the HR manager or the employee?"
I am sure everyone is aware of the IT INDUSTRY's RECRUITMENT/PAY NORMS and how CONSULTANTS, including HR, try to recruit EMPLOYEES.
PART 2
Now, imagine when the same candidate has applied for an ABC FIRM requirement. Even though he is qualified/experienced, if the HR rejects him just because he is a job hopper, what do we have to say now?
JOB HOPPER! Let's define this word and its associated factors before targeting HR MANAGERS and EMPLOYEES (JOB HOPPERS).
"The COLD WAR is between HR MANAGER & JOB HOPPERS. Let's enjoy by sharing our knowledge through BRAIN STORMING."
I am expecting HONEST REPLIES from all those members who have actively participated in this thread.
Good luck to you all.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I want to add my personal experience on this topic, as I worked for an organization for 2 years and changed my job after that. However, I was not satisfied with the salary; thus, I quit the job and joined a factory as the salary was good. But now, in my current organization, I have been working for the last 5 months and I see no scope of growth and development. Although I have rejected many offers and also not updated my profile in any of the portals for the past 6 months, I have now got a very good opportunity in the HR domain. The interviewer will definitely ask me about my job hopping. How could I explain the situation to them? Or should I wait for a few more months to try for a job? This opportunity, if missed, will be a loss to my career. Pretty confused.
Suggesting all HR members consider.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I want to add my personal experience on this topic, as I worked for an organization for 2 years and changed my job after that. However, I was not satisfied with the salary; thus, I quit the job and joined a factory as the salary was good. But now, in my current organization, I have been working for the last 5 months and I see no scope of growth and development. Although I have rejected many offers and also not updated my profile in any of the portals for the past 6 months, I have now got a very good opportunity in the HR domain. The interviewer will definitely ask me about my job hopping. How could I explain the situation to them? Or should I wait for a few more months to try for a job? This opportunity, if missed, will be a loss to my career. Pretty confused.
Suggesting all HR members consider.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Ashish,
Your experience of 2 years was in HR? You first need to see where your interest lies. Would you be looking at industries, the IT sector, insurance domain... what exactly? You should be aware that there is a significant difference in growth when comparing IT and a factory.
Please do not mind, but if we were to interview you, we would check the following points:
1) You changed your first job after 2 years, which is acceptable.
2) You joined another job and then quit because of salary reasons.
3) You joined a factory primarily for a good salary, but you mentioned there is no growth seen.
In this case, as an employer, your resume does not reflect stability but rather a focus on salary or a lack of clarity about which domain or industry you want to join. What will be judged here is that there is no clear direction in the way you are heading. If you are leaving within a few months solely for a salary purpose, you should have considered not accepting the offer. It seems you are confused. So, firstly, decide for yourself what you want.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your experience of 2 years was in HR? You first need to see where your interest lies. Would you be looking at industries, the IT sector, insurance domain... what exactly? You should be aware that there is a significant difference in growth when comparing IT and a factory.
Please do not mind, but if we were to interview you, we would check the following points:
1) You changed your first job after 2 years, which is acceptable.
2) You joined another job and then quit because of salary reasons.
3) You joined a factory primarily for a good salary, but you mentioned there is no growth seen.
In this case, as an employer, your resume does not reflect stability but rather a focus on salary or a lack of clarity about which domain or industry you want to join. What will be judged here is that there is no clear direction in the way you are heading. If you are leaving within a few months solely for a salary purpose, you should have considered not accepting the offer. It seems you are confused. So, firstly, decide for yourself what you want.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Aslesha,
Every individual (either technical or HR) starts looking for a change when they feel that the current organization is not offering them a good position, recognition, monetary benefits, or job satisfaction.
Stability is needed in the case of people in permanent roles and not for contractual employees.
When an HR professional is conducting an interview, he/she is representing the company and should treat the company as his/her own. Hiring decisions should be made considering the company's long-term needs and investments in training employees for critical projects. If it is perceived that an employee will not stay with the organization for the long term, it results in wasted time and effort in recruiting and training new candidates.
In HR, frequent job changes are common in the early stages of one's career, typically between 6 months to 3 years. Freshers may seek changes when they feel they have outgrown their current role and are not offered advancement or better compensation. As professionals gain experience and move up the ranks, they tend to prioritize stability and growth in their careers.
In today's context, HR professionals are often hired for short-term assignments based on organizational needs. After the projects are completed, they may be released from their roles, leading to frequent changes in employment. Additionally, compared to technical fields, HR may offer slower career progression and less financial rewards, which contributes to the turnover in HR positions.
Regards,
Sasmita
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Every individual (either technical or HR) starts looking for a change when they feel that the current organization is not offering them a good position, recognition, monetary benefits, or job satisfaction.
Stability is needed in the case of people in permanent roles and not for contractual employees.
When an HR professional is conducting an interview, he/she is representing the company and should treat the company as his/her own. Hiring decisions should be made considering the company's long-term needs and investments in training employees for critical projects. If it is perceived that an employee will not stay with the organization for the long term, it results in wasted time and effort in recruiting and training new candidates.
In HR, frequent job changes are common in the early stages of one's career, typically between 6 months to 3 years. Freshers may seek changes when they feel they have outgrown their current role and are not offered advancement or better compensation. As professionals gain experience and move up the ranks, they tend to prioritize stability and growth in their careers.
In today's context, HR professionals are often hired for short-term assignments based on organizational needs. After the projects are completed, they may be released from their roles, leading to frequent changes in employment. Additionally, compared to technical fields, HR may offer slower career progression and less financial rewards, which contributes to the turnover in HR positions.
Regards,
Sasmita
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Shkadir,
Replying to your post:
PART 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT FIRMS (HR) had tried their best to recruit (PULL) candidates on very short notice periods to deliver their projects on time. At times, employers had even paid applicants notice period pay without giving a thought to what would be the scenario in that organization for pulling/dragging/compelling employees purely for the company's requirements, just by offering more pay without considering their talent.
ANS: In this case, the hiring person is at fault not for recruiting candidates on short notice to deliver projects. It is at fault because of relying on means like offering more pay. Now, "offering more pay" also needs to be defined. If offering more salary is meant by more pay, then it is not a bribe as one should receive a higher salary when quitting. But if it involves negotiating with the salary and pressuring the person to join, then it is wrong.
In some companies, it also happens that people receive more pay compared to their talent. But if less is offered to such candidates, then they walk away. In such cases, talent doesn't come into the picture for candidates.
What would be the impact on employees' careers?
ANS: Employees would either leave for more money or stay with the existing company. I don't think any hiring person makes an employee's career. It is up to them to decide about their willingness to stay or quit. Yes, but definitely, a hiring person is showing a wrong way to the candidate just to fulfill their needs. This might lead the employee to think that this is acceptable. But when faced by an organization that strongly opposes it, the employee will be in trouble.
"In this Scenario, who is the committed EMPLOYEE here - HR MANAGER or EMPLOYEE?" - This still doesn't specify who is committed because the conclusion is unanswered; whether the person accepts the bribe or rejects it. The HR manager could be committed because he is doing his work, but it should be done without any unethical practices. The employee can be tagged as committed if he rejects the bribe. Both cases differ here.
PART 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now imagine, when the same candidate had applied for ABC FIRM's requirement. Even though he is qualified/experienced, if the HR rejects him just because he is a job hopper, what do we have to say now?
ANS: I feel in a way you are relating PART 2 to PART 1, saying that every time a person hops, he/she is bribed. If the same candidate is applying somewhere, he could get rejected because of job hopping. For the same, we should know what job hopping is. If he is hopping after every 8 months - 1 year, he will get rejected. One cannot say that he was bribed every time. And even if he was, come on man... how many times does he want to accept that bribe? It simply means that "I am changing because I am being bribed. I am talented, qualified, experienced but being bribed, that's why I am changing/hopping". Now this cannot be justified because nobody has asked him to quit. He is doing it solely for money's sake.
I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit.
By replying to this post, there is nothing personal. I have supported an HR where required and supported a non-HR employee where required.
And I have been honest while replying.
ASHLESHA
I am expecting an HONEST REPLY from all those members who had actively participated in this thread.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Replying to your post:
PART 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT FIRMS (HR) had tried their best to recruit (PULL) candidates on very short notice periods to deliver their projects on time. At times, employers had even paid applicants notice period pay without giving a thought to what would be the scenario in that organization for pulling/dragging/compelling employees purely for the company's requirements, just by offering more pay without considering their talent.
ANS: In this case, the hiring person is at fault not for recruiting candidates on short notice to deliver projects. It is at fault because of relying on means like offering more pay. Now, "offering more pay" also needs to be defined. If offering more salary is meant by more pay, then it is not a bribe as one should receive a higher salary when quitting. But if it involves negotiating with the salary and pressuring the person to join, then it is wrong.
In some companies, it also happens that people receive more pay compared to their talent. But if less is offered to such candidates, then they walk away. In such cases, talent doesn't come into the picture for candidates.
What would be the impact on employees' careers?
ANS: Employees would either leave for more money or stay with the existing company. I don't think any hiring person makes an employee's career. It is up to them to decide about their willingness to stay or quit. Yes, but definitely, a hiring person is showing a wrong way to the candidate just to fulfill their needs. This might lead the employee to think that this is acceptable. But when faced by an organization that strongly opposes it, the employee will be in trouble.
"In this Scenario, who is the committed EMPLOYEE here - HR MANAGER or EMPLOYEE?" - This still doesn't specify who is committed because the conclusion is unanswered; whether the person accepts the bribe or rejects it. The HR manager could be committed because he is doing his work, but it should be done without any unethical practices. The employee can be tagged as committed if he rejects the bribe. Both cases differ here.
PART 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now imagine, when the same candidate had applied for ABC FIRM's requirement. Even though he is qualified/experienced, if the HR rejects him just because he is a job hopper, what do we have to say now?
ANS: I feel in a way you are relating PART 2 to PART 1, saying that every time a person hops, he/she is bribed. If the same candidate is applying somewhere, he could get rejected because of job hopping. For the same, we should know what job hopping is. If he is hopping after every 8 months - 1 year, he will get rejected. One cannot say that he was bribed every time. And even if he was, come on man... how many times does he want to accept that bribe? It simply means that "I am changing because I am being bribed. I am talented, qualified, experienced but being bribed, that's why I am changing/hopping". Now this cannot be justified because nobody has asked him to quit. He is doing it solely for money's sake.
I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit.
By replying to this post, there is nothing personal. I have supported an HR where required and supported a non-HR employee where required.
And I have been honest while replying.
ASHLESHA
I am expecting an HONEST REPLY from all those members who had actively participated in this thread.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sasmita, I have really liked your reply as you are the only one who has focused on the question and rightly replied; rather than those who are differentiating between HR and non-HR employees.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Aslesha,
Thank you very much for being so straightforward. My priority in life is job satisfaction, along with a standard salary, and I definitely want to pursue a career in the hospitality domain. I have a basic graduation in Hotel Management only. Although joining a factory has helped me become well-versed with labor laws, there is seriously no growth opportunity here. Should I wait for some more time before changing jobs, or should I start trying now?
Please advise.
Thank you.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you very much for being so straightforward. My priority in life is job satisfaction, along with a standard salary, and I definitely want to pursue a career in the hospitality domain. I have a basic graduation in Hotel Management only. Although joining a factory has helped me become well-versed with labor laws, there is seriously no growth opportunity here. Should I wait for some more time before changing jobs, or should I start trying now?
Please advise.
Thank you.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Ashish,
Your priority in life is the same as the majority of people. What I'm saying is that firstly, see if you want to get into HR? Do some study on what the growth aspects are in HR (trust me, not much). You have done hotel management. So, do you want to pursue a profile relevant to your education or something different?
What is job satisfaction for you? Is it salary with a job that you like?
Is it profile and salary?
Is it a good profile and less salary or vice versa?
I'm sure it would be the first one, and there's nothing wrong in that.
You say you prefer the hospitality industry, but are you aware of the growth aspects in this industry?
If you think you want to change, you can change. Why waste more time by staying in it when nothing is working out? But you need to know what you are going to get into. You should not be faced with a situation again where you do not see growth or salary, and you quit. First, if you want to get into HR, get some good experience in HR and stay within it. Later, you will find out for yourself.
You can read Susmita's post above as a reply to my query. She has answered my post aptly, but you can also find out the growth aspects of HR in it as well.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your priority in life is the same as the majority of people. What I'm saying is that firstly, see if you want to get into HR? Do some study on what the growth aspects are in HR (trust me, not much). You have done hotel management. So, do you want to pursue a profile relevant to your education or something different?
What is job satisfaction for you? Is it salary with a job that you like?
Is it profile and salary?
Is it a good profile and less salary or vice versa?
I'm sure it would be the first one, and there's nothing wrong in that.
You say you prefer the hospitality industry, but are you aware of the growth aspects in this industry?
If you think you want to change, you can change. Why waste more time by staying in it when nothing is working out? But you need to know what you are going to get into. You should not be faced with a situation again where you do not see growth or salary, and you quit. First, if you want to get into HR, get some good experience in HR and stay within it. Later, you will find out for yourself.
You can read Susmita's post above as a reply to my query. She has answered my post aptly, but you can also find out the growth aspects of HR in it as well.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ashlesha,
Thank you for the post. I have been in the HR field only, and HR is the purpose of my life. I want to grow in the HR domain only, but selecting the hotel industry is familiar to me. Thus, it would be easier for me to climb up the ladder. However, the thing would be that my interview is on 4th May. What should I reply if the HR director asks me about my frequent job changes as I'm applying for the position of HR officer? If I'm not selected, should I start looking for jobs or wait for some more time?
Thank you.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for the post. I have been in the HR field only, and HR is the purpose of my life. I want to grow in the HR domain only, but selecting the hotel industry is familiar to me. Thus, it would be easier for me to climb up the ladder. However, the thing would be that my interview is on 4th May. What should I reply if the HR director asks me about my frequent job changes as I'm applying for the position of HR officer? If I'm not selected, should I start looking for jobs or wait for some more time?
Thank you.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi all,
When an HR rejects a candidate, his mindset is of an "HR," an employee who is recruiting on behalf of the company. So, from his point of view in that position, he is right. Whereas, when the same "HR" person changes the job, he is thinking for himself, remembering that HR is also a common person. Therefore, in both situations, the approach of the HR person is correct.
Tushar
HR Officer
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
When an HR rejects a candidate, his mindset is of an "HR," an employee who is recruiting on behalf of the company. So, from his point of view in that position, he is right. Whereas, when the same "HR" person changes the job, he is thinking for himself, remembering that HR is also a common person. Therefore, in both situations, the approach of the HR person is correct.
Tushar
HR Officer
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ashlesha,
To an extent, you had understood my query related to this thread. Of course, there is a BLAME GAME, and I found fault at both ends, HR & EMPLOYEE. I hope you will agree with this.
In order to meet my ex-organisation's demand, I had recruited FACULTY DOCTORS & ENGINEERS by paying more salary. In other words, to be precise, to meet our requirements, we had to pay more salary, where our requirements gave scope for applicants to put forward their demands. This process created demands for such PROFESSIONALS, hence they too started JOB HOPPING. Considering its disadvantages, MCI and AICTE had imposed STRICT RULES/REGULATIONS for hiring such professionals with a MINIMUM SERVICE PERIOD.
Referring to your point, "I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit." It can't be a closed query. It has many factors associated with it, including domain specialization. Kindly study your own reply by doing a 360-degree evaluation. There is no time limit for gaining knowledge because it's a continuous process but, "Yes, there is a MINIMUM PERIOD to serve an organization."
My reply is very straightforward and more practical in nature. We should try our best to correct the systems rather than blaming someone. You must be aware that everyone, at every level, wishes to earn more and more. An individual's earning capacity is associated with many factors and is proportional to market demand.
I sincerely hope that you had understood what I meant by this query where you haven't replied to "JOB HOPPER.!!!!!.........Let's define this word and its associated factors before we target HR MANAGERS and EMPLOYEES (JOB HOPPERS)."
The ROLE OF HR MANAGERS/PROFESSIONALS is quite substantial when compared with other professionals in any organization.
1) HR PROFESSIONALS are highly responsible for DEFINING EMPLOYEE CAREER ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR FUTURE.
2) HR MANAGERS need to educate EMPLOYEES about DRAWBACKS associated with JOB HOPPING.
3) I agree that HR MANAGERS are aligning their roles with company objectives, but it is not the COMPANY that is in the limelight but HR PROFESSIONALS. HR PROFESSIONALS must and should play a very safe game rather than being blamed for everything.
If you have any queries related to my reply, feel free to get clarified. I believe in doing ROOT ANALYSIS before I try my best to solve any query instead of focusing on the current thread because we should always try to present a permanent solution rather than just solving the present one.
Hope you understood what I mean to convey. Kindly align your PERCEPTION LEVEL with MINE. In fact, we all need to align our perception levels. Only then, you will be able to understand whatever I meant to convey.
Do feel free to correct me, even if I am right.
Good luck guys.
With profound regards,
Ashlesha,
Replying to your post:
PART 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT FIRMS (HR) had tried their best to recruit (PULL) candidates in a very short notice period to deliver their projects on time. At times, employers had even paid applicants notice period pay without giving a thought that,
1) What would be the scenario (in that organization) for pulling/dragging/compelling employees purely for the company's requirement, just by bribing him more pay, but not paying him for his talent?
ANS: In this case, the hiring person is at fault, not for recruiting candidates in a short notice to deliver projects. It is at fault because of relying on means like bribing him more pay. Now, "bribing more pay" also needs to be defined. If more pay means offering a higher salary, then it is not a bribe as you ought to receive a higher salary when you quit. But if it is negotiating with the salary and forcing the person to join, then it is a wrong action.
In some companies, it also happens that people receive more than their talent. But if less is offered to such candidates, then they walk away. In such cases, talent doesn't come into the picture for candidates.
2) What would be the impact on employees' careers?
ANS: Employees would either leave for more money or stay with the existing company. I don't think any hiring person makes an employee's career. It is for them to decide about their willingness to stay or to quit. Yes, but definitely, a hiring person is showing a wrong way to the candidate just to get his/her needs fulfilled. This might lead the employee to think that this is acceptable. But when faced by an organization that strongly opposes it, the employee will be in a difficult situation.
"In this Scenario who is the committed EMPLOYEE here - HR MANAGER or EMPLOYEE?" - this still doesn't specify who is committed because the conclusion is unanswered; whether or not the person accepts the bribe or rejects it. The HR manager could be committed because he is doing his work, but it should be done without any unethical practice. The employee can be tagged committed if he rejects the bribe. Both cases differ here.
PART 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now imagine when the same candidate had applied for ABC FIRM requirement. Even though he is qualified/experienced, if the HR rejects him just because he is a job hopper, what do we have to say now?
ANS: I feel in a way you are relating PART 2 to PART 1, saying that every time a person hops, he/she is bribed. If the same candidate is applying somewhere, he could get rejected because of job hopping. For the same, we should know what job hopping is. If he is hopping after every 8 months - 1 year, he will get rejected. One cannot say that he was bribed every time. And even if he was, come on man, how many times does he want to accept that bribe? It simply means that "I am changing because I am being bribed. I am talented, qualified, experienced, but being bribed, that's why I'm changing/hopping." Now, this cannot be justified because nobody has asked him to quit. He is doing it solely for money's sake. And I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit.
By replying to this post, there is nothing personal. I have supported an HR where required and supported a non-HR employee where required.
I have been honest while replying.
ASHLESHA
I am expecting an HONEST REPLY from all those members who had actively participated in this thread.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To an extent, you had understood my query related to this thread. Of course, there is a BLAME GAME, and I found fault at both ends, HR & EMPLOYEE. I hope you will agree with this.
In order to meet my ex-organisation's demand, I had recruited FACULTY DOCTORS & ENGINEERS by paying more salary. In other words, to be precise, to meet our requirements, we had to pay more salary, where our requirements gave scope for applicants to put forward their demands. This process created demands for such PROFESSIONALS, hence they too started JOB HOPPING. Considering its disadvantages, MCI and AICTE had imposed STRICT RULES/REGULATIONS for hiring such professionals with a MINIMUM SERVICE PERIOD.
Referring to your point, "I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit." It can't be a closed query. It has many factors associated with it, including domain specialization. Kindly study your own reply by doing a 360-degree evaluation. There is no time limit for gaining knowledge because it's a continuous process but, "Yes, there is a MINIMUM PERIOD to serve an organization."
My reply is very straightforward and more practical in nature. We should try our best to correct the systems rather than blaming someone. You must be aware that everyone, at every level, wishes to earn more and more. An individual's earning capacity is associated with many factors and is proportional to market demand.
I sincerely hope that you had understood what I meant by this query where you haven't replied to "JOB HOPPER.!!!!!.........Let's define this word and its associated factors before we target HR MANAGERS and EMPLOYEES (JOB HOPPERS)."
The ROLE OF HR MANAGERS/PROFESSIONALS is quite substantial when compared with other professionals in any organization.
1) HR PROFESSIONALS are highly responsible for DEFINING EMPLOYEE CAREER ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR FUTURE.
2) HR MANAGERS need to educate EMPLOYEES about DRAWBACKS associated with JOB HOPPING.
3) I agree that HR MANAGERS are aligning their roles with company objectives, but it is not the COMPANY that is in the limelight but HR PROFESSIONALS. HR PROFESSIONALS must and should play a very safe game rather than being blamed for everything.
If you have any queries related to my reply, feel free to get clarified. I believe in doing ROOT ANALYSIS before I try my best to solve any query instead of focusing on the current thread because we should always try to present a permanent solution rather than just solving the present one.
Hope you understood what I mean to convey. Kindly align your PERCEPTION LEVEL with MINE. In fact, we all need to align our perception levels. Only then, you will be able to understand whatever I meant to convey.
Do feel free to correct me, even if I am right.
Good luck guys.
With profound regards,
Ashlesha,
Replying to your post:
PART 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT FIRMS (HR) had tried their best to recruit (PULL) candidates in a very short notice period to deliver their projects on time. At times, employers had even paid applicants notice period pay without giving a thought that,
1) What would be the scenario (in that organization) for pulling/dragging/compelling employees purely for the company's requirement, just by bribing him more pay, but not paying him for his talent?
ANS: In this case, the hiring person is at fault, not for recruiting candidates in a short notice to deliver projects. It is at fault because of relying on means like bribing him more pay. Now, "bribing more pay" also needs to be defined. If more pay means offering a higher salary, then it is not a bribe as you ought to receive a higher salary when you quit. But if it is negotiating with the salary and forcing the person to join, then it is a wrong action.
In some companies, it also happens that people receive more than their talent. But if less is offered to such candidates, then they walk away. In such cases, talent doesn't come into the picture for candidates.
2) What would be the impact on employees' careers?
ANS: Employees would either leave for more money or stay with the existing company. I don't think any hiring person makes an employee's career. It is for them to decide about their willingness to stay or to quit. Yes, but definitely, a hiring person is showing a wrong way to the candidate just to get his/her needs fulfilled. This might lead the employee to think that this is acceptable. But when faced by an organization that strongly opposes it, the employee will be in a difficult situation.
"In this Scenario who is the committed EMPLOYEE here - HR MANAGER or EMPLOYEE?" - this still doesn't specify who is committed because the conclusion is unanswered; whether or not the person accepts the bribe or rejects it. The HR manager could be committed because he is doing his work, but it should be done without any unethical practice. The employee can be tagged committed if he rejects the bribe. Both cases differ here.
PART 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now imagine when the same candidate had applied for ABC FIRM requirement. Even though he is qualified/experienced, if the HR rejects him just because he is a job hopper, what do we have to say now?
ANS: I feel in a way you are relating PART 2 to PART 1, saying that every time a person hops, he/she is bribed. If the same candidate is applying somewhere, he could get rejected because of job hopping. For the same, we should know what job hopping is. If he is hopping after every 8 months - 1 year, he will get rejected. One cannot say that he was bribed every time. And even if he was, come on man, how many times does he want to accept that bribe? It simply means that "I am changing because I am being bribed. I am talented, qualified, experienced, but being bribed, that's why I'm changing/hopping." Now, this cannot be justified because nobody has asked him to quit. He is doing it solely for money's sake. And I don't think that after staying with a company for 1 year or 8 months, you gain sufficient knowledge that you would quit.
By replying to this post, there is nothing personal. I have supported an HR where required and supported a non-HR employee where required.
I have been honest while replying.
ASHLESHA
I am expecting an HONEST REPLY from all those members who had actively participated in this thread.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In my view, we must never consider employees and HR on the same platform. An employee is just an employee, and the HR person is an employee as well as a part of the management. So when they are recruiting, they are acting on behalf of the management and have the responsibility of hiring employees who will have a long-term association with the organization. Therefore, if they reject applicants, it is their duty.
However, when it comes to HR professionals changing jobs frequently, as I mentioned earlier, they are also employees and have the right to explore for growth.
Another point to consider is that I have observed many employees switching jobs merely for monetary benefits. Besides financial reasons, many HR professionals switch jobs for reasons such as satisfaction, new challenges, dignity, etc.
That is why I would say that HR's job-hopping is justified, unlike other employees.
Regards,
KT
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
However, when it comes to HR professionals changing jobs frequently, as I mentioned earlier, they are also employees and have the right to explore for growth.
Another point to consider is that I have observed many employees switching jobs merely for monetary benefits. Besides financial reasons, many HR professionals switch jobs for reasons such as satisfaction, new challenges, dignity, etc.
That is why I would say that HR's job-hopping is justified, unlike other employees.
Regards,
KT
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Job Description - HR & Admin.doc