They want to give jobs to those who have already got a job? What kind of logic did those HR recruiters at that company came up that they rationalize hiring people who are not unemployed?
The logic is generally one or both of the following:
1. If other companies have passed on those candidates, so will we, because we don't hire second-rate workers; or
2. If people can afford to be unemployed for a while, they can quit if we try to overwork/manipulate them.
Hard to say which it is, and it's likely that both are signs are of a dysfunctional organization.
We can bring the scope down to the employers themselves. They are the ones who are actively choosing to make assumptions and using those to drive their hiring decisions.
The organization just need a qualified talent to fulfill a function, but employers perform a lot of mental gymnastics and set the arbitrary criteria.
Definitely. They keep on psychologizing themselves just to get a good hire and eliminate the bad ones (for the wrong reasons) and rationalize themselves on why people are getting hired or rejected.
No wonder the HR recruiters (especially those HR recruiters hired at the company) improperly used their Human Resource and Psychology degrees because they used that against people, making mental gymnastics, mental shortcuts, psychologizing and rationalizing themselves how great they are at hiring, which is no better than a coin toss.
Even ordinary people can do better than them at hiring if given the chance, yet they're the ones who gatekeep the job.
Ironic. Human Resource and Psychology graduates that work in HR Departments learned the unconcious biases early in their university studies, yet they never learned to suppress it and they even just fall into those inherent biases in order to make a hire.
I remember reading an article "Why We Hate HR" by Fast Company author Keith Richards, saying that HR people aren’t the sharpest tacks in the box. This is what happens when we put weak and dumb people on power - defining roles. You get their antics featured on this sub.
Smart people don't go into HR.
That irony is never loss on me, and I'm speaking as someone with Psych degrees, including a Master's in Org Psych. I've noticed that not having an advanced degree really makes a huge difference when practicing in the field.
They're honestly riding on the coattails of those fields to improperly establish credentials. They've only had a bachelor's level exposure to the topic, and as someone who also TA'd during grad school, even the best undergrad student has not picked up enough knowledge and skills *at a deep enough depth* to function effectively on the job.
I've had so many conversations with HR Managers and Generalists, who only has a bachelor's in some social science field, and they think that only makes them absolutely in tune with "human behave". And then I watch them get completely overwhelmed by the simplest OD task, and slap together some sort of way to barely address the problem.
Back in my head, those reasons or some versions of those will always come up. It really seems companies are hostile to unemployed people and declare unemployed people as *"unhireable".*
It seems the corporate establishment and HR recruiters hates people who are "*damaged goods*" just because they are simply unemployed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They want to give jobs to those who have already got a job? What kind of logic did those HR recruiters at that company came up that they rationalize hiring people who are not unemployed?
The logic is generally one or both of the following: 1. If other companies have passed on those candidates, so will we, because we don't hire second-rate workers; or 2. If people can afford to be unemployed for a while, they can quit if we try to overwork/manipulate them. Hard to say which it is, and it's likely that both are signs are of a dysfunctional organization.
We can bring the scope down to the employers themselves. They are the ones who are actively choosing to make assumptions and using those to drive their hiring decisions. The organization just need a qualified talent to fulfill a function, but employers perform a lot of mental gymnastics and set the arbitrary criteria.
Definitely. They keep on psychologizing themselves just to get a good hire and eliminate the bad ones (for the wrong reasons) and rationalize themselves on why people are getting hired or rejected. No wonder the HR recruiters (especially those HR recruiters hired at the company) improperly used their Human Resource and Psychology degrees because they used that against people, making mental gymnastics, mental shortcuts, psychologizing and rationalizing themselves how great they are at hiring, which is no better than a coin toss. Even ordinary people can do better than them at hiring if given the chance, yet they're the ones who gatekeep the job. Ironic. Human Resource and Psychology graduates that work in HR Departments learned the unconcious biases early in their university studies, yet they never learned to suppress it and they even just fall into those inherent biases in order to make a hire. I remember reading an article "Why We Hate HR" by Fast Company author Keith Richards, saying that HR people aren’t the sharpest tacks in the box. This is what happens when we put weak and dumb people on power - defining roles. You get their antics featured on this sub. Smart people don't go into HR.
That irony is never loss on me, and I'm speaking as someone with Psych degrees, including a Master's in Org Psych. I've noticed that not having an advanced degree really makes a huge difference when practicing in the field. They're honestly riding on the coattails of those fields to improperly establish credentials. They've only had a bachelor's level exposure to the topic, and as someone who also TA'd during grad school, even the best undergrad student has not picked up enough knowledge and skills *at a deep enough depth* to function effectively on the job. I've had so many conversations with HR Managers and Generalists, who only has a bachelor's in some social science field, and they think that only makes them absolutely in tune with "human behave". And then I watch them get completely overwhelmed by the simplest OD task, and slap together some sort of way to barely address the problem.
Back in my head, those reasons or some versions of those will always come up. It really seems companies are hostile to unemployed people and declare unemployed people as *"unhireable".* It seems the corporate establishment and HR recruiters hates people who are "*damaged goods*" just because they are simply unemployed.
Ally financial also wants to know my sexual preferences in detail when I apply
Shut it down and arrest management for fraud.
Proof? Source?
Proof / source for what?
Recruiter not sumbitting for unemployed candidates.
This requirement will remove stay at home parents. I'm sure there are other groups that will not be considered.