A large gap exists between the opinions of HR professionals and those in business management roles, according to a recent survey.
A total of 96 organisations were surveyed and results showed that 72 per cent of HR people believed that the statement, ‘anything that gets vacancies filled more quickly’, was a high priority, whereas only 28 per cent of business people felt this was relevant.
Laurence Collins, CEO of activ8 intelligence, the survey authors, said: “The results of our survey show conclusively that the HR profession is chasing its own tail on some major business issues. It’s deeply worrying that 72 per cent of the HR people we surveyed are more concerned with getting people in post than in making sure the right people are there in the first place, especially in view of the fact that our figures show that most businesses don’t see this as a priority.”
Other results highlighted further disparities. For instance, the majority of business respondents disagreed with HR professionals about the importance of reducing first-year attrition rates. While HR placed a high importance on decreasing staff turnover in employees with service less than 12 months, business people were more interested in cutting the cost of bringing staff on board.
Collins added: “One of the key findings from this survey is that many HR departments are targeting areas for strategic growth which the rest of the business doesn’t value. The rest of the business world, from line managers to CEOs, wants HR to deliver more top performers, in less time at a lower cost.
“Businesses are driven by solutions, so HR needs to think more strategically about how an effective recruitment practice can reduce attrition, rather than simply focussing on the problem.”
One Response
Another HR v. business gap
Laurence Collins’ useful demonstration of HR’s obsession with filling vacancies more quickly reminds me of how many employers still tolerate the recruitment of inadequately screened candidates.
HR departments too often motivate recruiting managers to hire quickly and cheaply whilst ignoring their protection responsibilities.
Who in the organisation is accountable for background checking? “Risk” and “Compliance” usually feature high up on executives’ priorities. But organisations usually delegate ID, probity, qualification and work history checks to recruitment managers with different, usually conflicting, priorities.
I rarely meet business managers who aren’t fearful of staff dishonesty or crime. And I rarely meet HR officers who reflect this caution in their recruitment practices.
David Chernick
Reed Screening