HR/Recruiting IS stuck in a time warp. Bosses: what are you going to do about it?

Yesterday, this article was brought to my attention:

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130130005035-15454-bill-gates-and-is-hr-recruiting-stuck-in-a-time-warp

I particularly liked these gems:

“Companies still post boring jobs, hoping to find exceptional people where no one else looked before.”

And especially:

“We still preclude people who have great ability, but without the so-called “proper” background or requisite years of experience to be considered. In our rush to hire at scale we still ignore the needs of those being hired and how they make decisions.”

The whole article is worth reading, as are the readers’ comments at the bottom of the page.

I think the author makes an important observation with his #1 point: defining the role in terms of future performance objectives, rather than years on the job and shopping lists of arbitrary requirements.

I have met enough box-ticking recruiters to last several lifetimes. I was asked at an agency whether I had ever used a certain Outlook-based file management system before, and she looked solemn and dubious when I said that wasn’t a package I had seen, but I was perfectly willing to learn.

When I finally went to a company that had this system, it took me about five minutes to find my way around it and how it worked. How many openings was my application not put forward for, simply because of these arbitrary requirements that are only an obstacle because the first stage recruitment staff make them one?

I’m reminded once again of the correlations of various factors to job performance. When are bosses going to bring their recruitment policies into the 21st century and start heeding it? 

Psychometric intelligence test: 0.51
Work sample test: 0.54
Integrity test: 0.41
Conscientiousness test 0.51
Employment interview (structured): 0.51
Employment interview (unstructured): 0.38
Reference checks: 0.26
Job experience (years): 0.18
Years of education: 0.10
Interests: 0.10
Graphology (handwriting analysis): 0.02
Age: -0.01

Source: J. E. Hunter and R. F. Hunter (1984) “Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.” Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98 and F. L. Schmidt and J. E. Hunter (1998) “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.” Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-74.