How best to approach and explain decisions on hiring to HR 4

[sbozy25]

I have had a few years now of low level management, with small teams usually consisting of myself, 1 other engineer, and a CAD person. I was very recently awarded my masters degree in international business, following a very long 2 years of after work schooling. Upon completion, my company informed me that they now felt I was ready for a full time, upper level management role, and that they were going to allow me to pick my team.

I am being put in charge of new product development of our medical device segment. Here is what HR and the managers above me are allowing me to choose. I was told that my team would consist of: 4 engineers, 4 CAD designers, 1 test engineer (could be shared with other groups depending on how much work he has), 1 quality engineer (could also be shared), 1 application engineer for inside sales work, 1 customer service rep, and 2 outside sales contractors. I am being given basic free reign on this team, and can pick them at my leisure, as long as I have them picked by the end of Q2-2014, which is fine with me. I'm also given the option of picking entirely within the company, or going outside and picking from fresh candidates. I will also be given 2 engineering summer interns of my choice once school lets out for the summer. For each of the positions, I was given a chart of salary ranges that could be awarded based on years of experience. I was also given a total year budge for salary that my whole team needs to try and fit within, not counting my salary. HR has also stated they will help me with the negotiations since this is my first time truly setting a team up and having to hire people.

This is all a dream come true for me, and I'm very excited to get this moving. I have reviewed the job descriptions and job placement adds that will be put out to use while searching for candidates, and have made the changes I wanted. Things are moving very quickly so far, and 2 weeks ago I already had a stack of 60 resume's to review. From that list, I picked 10 that I liked and wanted to conduct interviews with. I was also given 3 internal candidates that I liked and had to interview also.

Here is the issue that I'm facing now. I've interviewed all 3 of the internal candidates, and only liked 1 that I wanted to offer a job to. Then, out of the 10 I've interviewed from the outside, I did not like any of them, and told HR I would like to pass on all of them. HR got a little irritated with me, told me I needed to not be so picky, and then asked me to provide a 1 page summary on each person as to why I did not like them and felt we should pass. This caught me off guard, and I'm not sure how to feel about it. Is this a normal request from HR and is this something any of you have had to do in the past? I don't think I really need to explain much about why I want to pass. Our standard interview process is to have the candidate meet with HR for the first hour, meet with one of the other managers of a similar department that they will work in, and then meet with the hiring manager for the last hour. On top of this, I have prepared a basic CAD test for any designer applicant, and then a basic engineering test for any engineering / technical applicant. The tests are not super hard, and are more used for evaluating the candidate's thought process and reasoning skills. HR was not the most fond of this and told me that they would allow it, but didn't want me to base my decision on the test results only, which is fine with me. Then once the interview is done, the three interviewers sit down for 30 minutes and debrief each other on our thoughts. In each case, HR was in love with the candidate, and the other manager was in line with me and my thoughts.

I don't want to be bullied into picking the first people that come in the door, and if this is my team to select, I think I should select the best possible person for each role. Is this not the right way to think about it? I want to make sure I give myself and my team every chance for success and feel that if that truly is the case, I should be able to have my team the way I want it.

Anyone have some thoughts on how I can effectively neutralize HR and do things my way, or should I just roll over and do as they want?

Thanks for any suggestions!

Definition of irony: A Ford Focus driver with ADD...

 

[IRstuff]

This is obviously a good test of your management skills and talent. In many instances, running an organization involves many compromises, both technical and managerial. You still have 6 months to fill your organization, but given your apparent level of standards, you need to look at what you can live with (need), and not necessarily what you want. You should compare this situation with similar situations in your technical experience. Designing and building a mechanical, or other, system requires balancing competing requirements and resources. In some cases, one can find a set of sub-optimum components that work well and synergisticly to produce a superior whole. Also, consider the story from "Money Ball," wherein the team was able to achieve great success with less than ideal candidates.

Anyone, presumably, could be successful with an A-team; the mark of a truly great manager is to be successful with a B-team or lower.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[MintJulep]

It's perfectly normal and reasonable for HR to need an interview report and recommendation from the hiring manager, and possibly other interviewers.

It's surprising that they want you to "free form" it, rather than providing your some sort of form to fill in.

The one I need to use asks me to score from 1 to 5 on: technical knowledge, oral communication skill, written communication skill, goals and their relevancy to the position applied for, ability to be a team worker, professional demeanor and willingness to travel. I am supposed to provide a one or two sentence summary to justify the score of each of those, and an overall summary with an offer or pass recommendation.

 

[ManifestDestiny]

I haven't been in your position, and I'm young and inexperienced so I really shouldn't even been commenting on such an issue, but perhaps you could remind HR that should a bad hire perform poorly on your watch it will be your responsibility and not their's. That should be enough "leverage" (HR speak) for your decisions to take precedence over their's. Also use big scary words like "paradigm shift" and "unknown unknowns" so they understand what exactly your talking about.

Dont be too picky though, your making it sound like theres a shortage of engineers.

Sam
Brisbane, Australia

Young Engineer. American old west enthusiast

 

[TheTick]

A big part of your problem could be recruiting and screening. I've experienced recruiters of all stripes. Some try too hard to wedge square pegs into hexagonal holes. Some simply don't understand the requirements well enough to discern good candidates from "other".

There are also good recruiters. They do a good job at screening and matching and understanding requirements. Find them and let them do their voodoo.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

A full page on each candidate is way overstepping bounds. A single paragraph on each documenting the candidates strengths/weaknesses, as well as why you felt the cons were bigger than the pros, should be the only requirement. Anything beyond that does not help. But it does need to be done, and you should get used to doing it.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[fegenbush]

IRStuff nailed it on his response. I hire people on two basis: skill and attitude. Candidates rarely have both in abundance and it takes a good mix to make a successful team.

MintJulep also got it right with the form that HR generally provides. If such a form does not exist in your organization, create one. Their request for feedback is certainly warranted. This is especially true if you would like them to improve your candidate pool.

 

[MikeHalloran]

At a long time former employer, each senior member of the engineering department was asked to provide a written version of the 'standard interview' that each conducted. We all complied, mostly without revealing the expected answers. Most of the questions were variations on hoary old trick questions that any real engineer would recognize as such.

HR then sent in a string of, well, idiots, who really didn't come close to being trainable. We protested at the waste of our time, and better candidates started showing up, being interviewed, being reported on favorably in the paragraphs we were required to send HR, and ... never being seen again.

Then HR's tactics changed. We noticed they were only sending us obviously inappropriate candidates to be formally rejected by us. The candidates whom HR liked would thereafter never go through the engineering 'gauntlet'; they just showed up for work.



Speaking of "Money Ball", one engineering manager selected a team entirely from internal candidates who were available because they were deemed undesirable by other managers. He assigned each person to do whatever that person was good at, and assigned someone else to offset each person's weaknesses. The resulting team was hugely successful, introducing two wildly popular and profitable products in rapid succession.

I wish I could say that adventure had a happy ending, but <pejorative> Top Management </pejorative> completely misunderstood what happened and how. They forced the manager into early retirement, and distributed the former team members randomly to other managers (the ones who never wanted them in the first place), and wondered why the other managers still couldn't do squat with what they were given.

I.e.
HR won't/can't get you the people you want.
You can't fight the bastards and win.
Internal candidates are more of a known quantity than outsiders.
Take a special interest in the ones with 'bad attitude', who may have been identified as such precisely because they care about what's going on, and don't want to accept the status quo.





Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[GregLocock]

HR have put several hours effort and spent some amount of money to deliver a candidate to you. It does not seem unreasonable to expect an explanation for a rejection. Hell, it might even form the basis of a useful database down the track for you. I don't know about a one pager but 5 or 10 bullet points wouldn't take too long.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Ron]

Agree with McGiverS2000...one page is a bit much, but as Greg noted, some level of explanation is not unreasonable.

I would give valid reasons for rejection, not just "gut feel". Too much of that and you'll be "branded" by HR (negatively, of course!). Some valid reasons would be...

1. lack of clear communications skills
2. does not take direction well
3. Over-values themselves

etc....


Be as objective as possible in your assessment. Subjective evaluations have less impact.

 

[Triangled]

First, congratulations.
Second, I am deliberately not reading the preceding comments as they will likely affect my thinking..... and, i have zero problem acknowledging, quite possibly for the better - which is what i truly love about this engineering forum, but this question is not so much about engineering, and this is your gig, not mine.
Third, I have not been in your position.
Fourth, I own my company and partly owned the one before it.
Fifth, I do not consider myself a very good people manager.
Sixth, but my wife is still with me.
So, My thoughts.....
1. HR is upset because your position 1) challenges the quality of the applicants they have sent to you, which carries an implied question regarding the performance of their own duties, which introduces fear when they think of their bosses, and 2) requires them to do more work by seeking more applicants, which they'd rather not do. And 3) Your failure in your new position is no skin off their nose. Your failure will be your own.
Modulate this with brilliance.... Making HR feel safe from what they fear, but pursuing your ends.... "Omg HR, you are amazing! and I know what my posture must seem like to you! Thank you so much for your amazing patience.. I've been telling the SR management about how terrific you've been through all of this. But this new thing is so huge for the company! And I feel so responsible to the SR management to produce and, and, and ... "
2. Senior Management has assigned you to a position in view of their present opportunities and anticipated future challenges. With an investment the size you are describing, they truly want you, and perhaps need you, to succeed beyond their expectations. They understand your inexperience. They understand HR's complaints. They hear them routinely. You generate revenue, HR doesn't. Engage SR management, not as a referee between you and HR.... too boring and common for them.... But engage them in the kind of team you need to realize their vision.
3. Management has placed considerable faith in you. You have faith too.
4. The 2Q timeframe seems plenty. If you've gone 22 weeks into it with no one on your staff.... That's one thing.... Maybe you're more ridiculously unreasonable than me.... But if SR management gave you 2Q.... They won't mind if you use 1-1/2 quarters. And, if, ... when... you deliver........ I'd like to be there!

 

[sbozy25]

Great feedback everyone, I really appreciate your insight into this.

I've had the holiday to think about this, and think I have a game plan in place. I am putting a 1 page form together where I will rate candidates on a 3 point scale. Then I will drawn an imaginary line in the sand as the minimum points needed to be considered for my employment. If I do not like a candidate, I will rate them low enough they will fail, and will then hand the form over to HR as my 1 page reason for not hiring. Then, if I like the person, I will rate them high enough to pass and use that as my justification.

Now I just need to convince HR to allow me to terminate an interview immediately for CAD and Engineering if they bomb the simple test. The way I see it, I'm looking for experienced people, and if they can't put a logical design process or answer a few basic questions, I do not have time to waste trying to train them.

I have successfully hired 1 person from inside the company, he said yes, and starts reporting 6/JAN to me.

Our big problem here is that in the past 18 months, we have gone through 2 sets of ownership hands, and as such, policies have changed, and our HR department is lacking any true direction. All they do is look for the word "engineer" or "CAD" or "quality" on a resume, etc, and they pass it on for my review. I have asked for some screening and offered to help them put a procedure in place to do just that, but it was scoffed at and I was told no that their process works fine. Which, yes it works for them, as they can do a search command on a group of resume's for certain key words, and just pass the ones on that meet the criteria.... Sigh... I just need to stay positive and keep moving forward with a smile on my face. Then go home and drink heavily until the pain goes away....

Definition of irony: A Ford Focus driver with ADD...

 

[tbuelna]

The reason HR wants a written report from you regarding potential engineering new-hires is because HR has no ability to evaluate the technical capabilities of these candidates. They simply want a written letter from you to put in their files to cover their butts if things don't work out with the new employee.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Now I just need to convince HR to allow me to terminate an interview immediately for CAD and Engineering if they bomb the simple test.

"allow" you? No, HR should not be dictating your interview process beyond some basics (such as what paperwork needs to be filled out, etc.) You are looking for engineering candidates, not HR candidates, therefore the process to find such a person should be under engineering's control. If the first test is CAD-based and the candidate cannot do simple stuff, the interview is over, thanks for coming in.

Our big problem here is that in the past 18 months, we have gone through 2 sets of ownership hands, and as such, policies have changed, and our HR department is lacking any true direction. All they do is look for the word "engineer" or "CAD" or "quality" on a resume, etc, and they pass it on for my review. I have asked for some screening and offered to help them put a procedure in place to do just that, but it was scoffed at and I was told no that their process works fine.

Sounds like you need to take the reigns a little more heavily, possibly even going to the head of HR and working something out (you may need a lot of honey for this trip and leave the vinegar at home). Get the head of engineering involved since it concerns their year-end bonus to get in good people and not waste your time. At my current company we had a great HR person, but we had to train her... she wanted to learn what we needed, and that made a huge difference. Initially, the people were were being sent were keyword matchers, but eventually we received highly-targeted resumes and our time sink dropped significantly.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[SNORGY]

sbozy25,

I was with you - in general - until your last post that outlined your plan for the three point scale grading system.

(paraphrasing: "If I like them, I'll rank them high and use that as justification for hiring, and if I don't like them, I'll rank them low and use that as justification for not hiring." - end paraphrasing). In other words, put time and energy into developing a systematic and objective method to assist in your recruitment, only to whimsically - at your sole discretion - discard it and use it as no more than a politically motivated repository for bogus data to be used in support of your, now, completely subjective decision to hire or not hire. You would be better off just going with your gut in the first place.

Re-read your original post. You started with 60 resumes and picked 10 that you LIKED. You also had 3 internal candidates that you LIKED. Out of a pool of 63 people, you ended up with only 1 that you LIKED. Presumably, that's the guy you hired. So, I spelled "LIKE(D)" in caps because it leaves me with the impression that there has been a strong element of subjectivity in your screening process anyway, regardless of whatever technical tests you have prepared. So, again, I say you're better off going with your gut, because at the end of the day, that's all you are doing.

This is not a criticism at all. In fact, it is the opposite, because in spite of how it comes across, I believe you are doing all the right things. You are just falling into the same trap I fell into more than 17 years ago when I was tasked with recruiting people for my small department. I did exactly what you are now doing, and I, too, came up with an objective, quantifiable, points ranking system. The trouble is, when I forced myself to follow it, it *ranked* two candidates higher than the person whom I "LIKED". I went to management with this dilemma and shook my head, saying, "Objectively, by my own measurement system, this person is my third choice, but I think she's the best of the three.". They said, "Trust your gut. We trust your judgement.". So, I turfed the tests and hired the "third best" person for the job. She went on to convince everyone, through her performance, that it was the right choice.

Fast forward to where you are at now. You stated that in the follow-up with HR, your manager supported your decision(s). It sounds like you have your superiors' confidence and backing, just as I did. If that's the case, I would suggest that "following your gut" is enough and you don't need to try so hard. My perception is that, subconsciously, you are trying so hard not to fail that you are already putting needless constraints on your opportunity to succeed. That is baiting a second trap that you might be falling into. You might be carrying an air of scrutiny into all of your interviews that is off-putting and fostering a feeling within otherwise suitable candidates that they need to put their guard up, and subconsciously, this might be preventing them from taking the opportunity to present their strengths to you. In other words, you might already be cinching up the choke chains on the very team you want to unleash. On this point, HR might be right insofar as suggesting you might be too picky.

Time and your management are on your side in this process. My suggestion would be to move forward from a more open-minded and relaxed perspective and foster an interviewing atmosphere that allows the candidate to sell himself or herself to you. All the while, take in, absorb and digest what they have to say, and ask yourself, "...interesting, how can I use that in what I am trying to accomplish here?...". I'd lay dimes to dollars that several of the candidates you have already discarded might do very well in a second interview if it was approached in this way. I say this because one out of sixty three is a ratio that suggests, to me, that you're trying too hard. All you really need is to let HR know that your gut is good enough and, indeed, *rules* in the decision making process. They assist you, not the other way around.

I'll leave you with two anecdotes as food for thought...

In the early 2000's, I begrudgingly accepted a mid-management role and a job I didn't want, in which I inherited a person in my department whom I had never met and whom the company had hired but didn't know what to do with. Great - there I was, introducing myself as the boss I didn't want to be to the employee I never asked to have. Within a year, I looked brilliant, because she was the best mechanical engineer I ever worked with and everyone else in the company asked for *her* (as opposed to my) help. I got to go down to Starbucks and pass a lot of my time relaxing while she aced every assignment that came her way. At about the same time, I got a border collie for a competition dog who was too afraid of his own shadow - as well as things like flower pots, hats, thunder, rain - to get through a course. Within five years, he went on to take me to four National Steeplechase finals and came within one mistake (MY mistake, by the way) of winning a National Agility Championship; not bad for a dog I never wanted.

My points are:
(1) Give folks a chance.
(2) Trust your judgement.
(3) Stop trying so hard and go with your gut.

Best of luck...relax.

 

[IRstuff]

Ultimately, there is no purely objective criteria for selecting an employee; it's one of the reasons why senior engineers are rarely skills tested, since it's often more important that the new employee "fit in." Otherwise, a computer program could do the hiring.

Nonetheless, a set of objective criteria can be, and are, often used to justify one's decisions. Do not be afraid to do the same, since it's pretty much what everyone does. That's one reason why people here often recommend chasing job postings that have requirements that aren't strictly a match, since such requirements are often used to weed out both inexperienced and conventional-thinking applicants.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[moltenmetal]

Take your time. Unless there's a pressing timeline, you're doing yourself and your organization a lot of potential harm by hiring Mr. Right Now rather than Ms Right. Been there, done that, got the scars to prove it.

When an organization hires someone, the organization can easily become reluctant to part ways with them for mere poor performance - more reluctant than can be explained merely by the cost of severance etc. And poor performers seldom leave of their own accord. What results is a dumbing down of the organization- a tolerance of mediocrity.

 

[tbuelna]

I have spent most of the past 25 years working as a contract engineer, and one thing I have learned during this time is that you will never get hired based just on an interview or a resume. 90% of the time you will only get hired based on a personal recommendation to the prospective employer from someone they know.

I have worked for at least 15 different companies over the past 25+ years. I have been turned down for numerous jobs that I was more than qualified for, in spite of a solid resume and interview, most likely because I did not have a personal reference. On the other hand, I have also been hired for a few jobs where my qualifications were marginal, most likely due to the fact that I had someone who provided a reference.

Sadly, it mostly boils down to who you know rather than what you know.

 

[casseopeia]

sbozy25,

Whatever rating system you develop, make sure it stands up to 3rd party scrutiny in blinding daylight. From my personal experience, a 'star' rating of any kind is determined by most people as a feeling instead of objective factors.





If you are offended by the things I say, imagine the stuff I hold back.

 

[limey1]

I have used a DDI format interview guide. If nothing else, it gives you a consistancy from interview to interview (Score by situation / experience). This would somewhat negate anyone in HR kicking up a stink about you being too picky. In my experience, that is HR being lazy (They just want you to take on a "body", so they can pat themselves on the back)and not understanding yours and the organizations needs. More and more I am seeing people put in decision making positions that they have no damn experience to have an opinion about. Stick to your guns, and good luck.