Hiring Strategies followed by Organizations

People are the lifeblood of any organization. Whether the organization is in the traditional sectors like manufacturing or it is a “new economy” based one like IT and ITES, it needs to be staffed with people of caliber and mettle. Hence, the kind of people that an organization hires is critical to the success of the organization. In this respect, the hiring strategies followed by organizations take on prominence in the competitive business environment of the 21st century.

Hiring can take place in many ways and at many levels. It can be for entry level positions or “lateral” hiring where people with experience are taken on board. Further, hiring people can be based on competitive exams (entry level) and the personal approach favored by HR managers for senior level positions. In recent times, hiring for the entry level has taken on an entirely new dimension with the campus recruitment procedures that rely on getting the best talent available from the campuses for companies wishing to hire for entry level positions. The other way of hiring is through selective approach where the Staffing department entrusts the placement consultants with the task of identifying potential employees by picking “profiles” from employee databases and the consultants own database as well.

As outlined above, the different hiring strategies are for different levels in the organization. The most niche hiring takes place at senior levels where the essence is discreetness and hence dedicated consultants or HR professionals approach people at higher levels on a one-one basis.

Whatever be the hiring strategy deployed, the essential components of the process remain more or less the same. These include choosing from the available candidates, taking a decision as to the pay and perks, making an offer and finally, getting them “on board”. The hiring process ranges from as less a month or so to drawn out affairs for niche placement. The strategic imperatives that underpin hiring depend on the ability of the organization to effectively leverage its reputation, flexibility in the roles that are available, availability of skilled resources and finally, the package that the organization is willing to offer.

Most debates in organizations on the hiring process hinge on the length of time it takes to hire a person for a particular role and the package that the organization is willing to offer. The term “fitment” is often used as HR jargon which is all about whether a particular person is suitable for the role that is being filled and how well he or she “fits” the job profile. One of the reasons for attrition in organizations is the fact that many employees join them with a set of assumptions about their role only to have their hopes dashed in reality. Hence, in recent times, industry experts have focused on this aspect of ensuring that people are hired only if they are of the right fit.

In conclusion, hiring people is a key component of a company’s internal strategy and hence something that needs detailed attention and focus. We have touched upon the hiring strategies and the overview of the process. In subsequent articles, we would explore the topic further.

Performance Management as a HR Management concept

The very mention of appraisals, reviews and ratings is enough to make seasoned professionals cringe and rejoice alike. For some, these are occasions when they would come out smiling out of the review whereas for others, there is nothing memorable about the whole process. So, what is it that is so important about performance management? For starters,performance management is the process of reviewing an employee’s performance during the preceding year or cycle and deciding where he or she stands as far as their peers in the same band are concerned. The process of reviewing results, arriving at a rating and then deciding upon the bonus or salary hike is what performance management is all about. Before we look at the topic sentence, it is important to understand what goes into the decision making process and who is involved in the same. Typically, the process of performance management starts a month or two before the appraisal cycle ends. The appraisal cycle can be half-yearly or yearly depending upon the policies of the organization. Further, the appraisal cycle can be based on the calendar year or the financial year i.e. it can run from April to March of the following year or January to December of the same year. In the same vein, it can be half-yearly as well.

There are different rounds to the appraisal process. 

1.       In the first round, the people who participate in an employee’s appraisal are the employee and his or her manager. In this round, the manager gives a frank assessment of the employee’s performance after giving a chance to the employee to self-assess.

2.       The second round consists of the manager and the manager’s manager. This round is mostly about deciding the band in which the employee falls post the rating and in comparison with his or her peers. This process of rationalizing the employee’s performance with others is called “normalization”. In some organizations, this takes place in the third round where the HR manager is involved as well. In any case, the ratings cannot be decided without the HR manager’s assent to the same. Once these rounds are over, the bonus level or the salary hike are decided.

What we have described in the above paragraphs is the way the system “ought” to work. However, as any HR professional or Industry magazines would tell you, the performance management process as it exists in many organizations leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, surveys and studies have found that the majority of employee’s who quit organizations do so because of differences over their ratings. In other words, attrition is in many cases a direct consequence of the way in which the performance management process is managed.

The question as to why this happens can be best understood if we understand the dynamics inherent in the process. For instance, despite exhortations from HR professionals and experts about letting personal biases and prejudices affect the process, in many cases, if the manager and the employee do not see eye to eye on many issues, the appraisal and the ratings are the place where this difference of opinion comes out into the open. Further, the organizations are themselves to blame in some cases as the process of “normalization” means a “winner takes all” approach which leaves the moderate performers bracketed with the poor performers. The point here is not to belittle the competitive environment that is the reason for this. On the other contrary, what is needed is a more holistic approach towards performance management that takes into account the varying needs of employee’s and a broader appreciation of differing working styles and motivations.

How is your work performance?

How is your work performance? Employee "A" in a company walked up to his manager and asked what my job is for the day?  •The manager took "A" to the bank of a river and asked him to cross the  river and reach the other side of the bank.  •"A" completed this task successfully and reported back to the manager about  the completion of the task assigned. The manager smiled and said "GOOD  JOB".  Next day Employee "B" reported to the same manager and asked him the job  for the day. The manager assigned the same task as above to this person  also. •The Employee "B' before starting the task saw Employee "C" struggling in the  river to reach the other side of the bank. He realized "C" has the same task. •Now "B" not only crossed the river but also helped "C" to cross the river.  •"B" reported back to the manager and the manager smiled and said "VERY  GOOD JOB"  The following day Employee "Q" reported to the same manager and asked  him the job for the day. The manager assigned the same task again.  •Employee "Q" before starting the work did some home work and realized "A",  "B" & "C" all has done this task before. He met them and understood how  they performed.  •He realized that there is a need for a guide and training for doing this task.  •He sat first and wrote down the procedure for crossing the river, he  documented the common mistakes people made, and tricks to do the task  efficiently and effortlessly.  •Using the methodology he had written down he crossed the river and  reported back to the manager along with documented procedure and training  material.  •The manger said "Q" you have done an "EXCELLENT JOB".  The following day Employee "O' reported to the manager and asked him the  job for the day. The manager assigned the same task again. "O" studied the procedure written down by "Q" and sat and thought about the whole task. He realized company is spending lot of money in getting this task completed. He decided not to cross the river, but sat and designed and implemented a bridge across the river and went back to his manager and said, "You no longer need to assign this task to any one". The manager smiled and said "Outstanding job 'O'. I am very proud of you." What is the difference between A, B, Q & O???????? Many a times in life we get tasks to be done at home, at office, at play., Most of us end up doing what is expected out of us. Do we feel happy? Most probably yes. We would be often disappointed when the recognition is not meeting our expectation. Let us compare ourselves with "B". Helping someone else the problem often improves our own skills. There is an old proverb (I do not know the author) "learn to teach and teach to learn". From a company point of view "B" has demonstrated much better skills than "A" since one more task for the company is completed. "Q" created knowledge base for the team. More often than not, we do the task assigned to us without checking history. Learning from other's mistake is the best way to improve efficiency. This knowledge creation for the team is of immense help. Re-usability reduces cost there by increases productivity of the team. "Q" demonstrated good "team-player" skills, Now to the outstanding person, "O" made the task irrelevant; he created a Permanent Asset to the team.  If you notice B, Q and O all have demonstrated "team performance" over and above individual performance; they have also demonstrated a very invaluable characteristic known as "INITIATIVE". Initiative pays of everywhere whether at work or at personal life. If you have initiative you will succeed. Initiative is a continual process and it never ends. This is because this year's achievement is next year's task. You cannot use the same success story every year.  The story provides an instance of performance, where as measurement needs to be spread across at least 6-12 months. Consequently performance should be consistent and evenly spread.  Out-of-Box thinkers are always premium and that is what everyone constantly looks out for. Initiative, Out-of-Box thinking and commitment are the stepping stone to success. Initiative should be lifelong. Think of out of the box.